Serapis Bey

I have more observations, but I won't be making them in a public forum. Ask me about Narcissus and Medusa next time we hang out.

The suspense is terrible. I hope it lasts.

(and speaking of that...have you finally determined the details of your texting plan? Or will I suffer your wrath again for the 10 cents I add to your phone bill?)

A straw man. I don't think Kacy and Brant expect Rand Paul to be perfect, with or without caps. They expect from him, if I understand them, substantive principled performance.

Like it or hate it, but politics is the art of compromise.

Take the case in hand, ending the “War on Drugs.” We might agree that injustices of long-standing are usually best ended incrementally, but it should go without saying that the increments must be substantial changes, not infinitesimal ones that go nowhere.

What would be a substantial increment? Thinking about it off the top, the following could done, in order, with no more than a few years in between:

1. End all mandatory federal sentencing immediately Sentences will be up to the judge. All past sentences made under the mandatory sentencing laws will be vacated and re-considered.

2. Decriminalize marijuana.

3. Decriminalize unrefined opium (it used to be called laudanum).

4. Phase out, in sub-stages, the criminalization of refined opiates. I haven’t thought much about what the sub-stages could be. Such opiates could be licensed like alcohol is now (but should not be). The quantity per sale per month could be restricted, etc.

Good ideas. If Rand Paul is not your man, who is?

Kacy, sorry to see you jet, but I would remind you that all of us here are Advocates of Reason. Explicitly, even. Where else will you find a group of people united in their use of Reason? Atheist blogs?

BTW,

Brant said:

Funny as hell.

ginny said:

I mean, you're funny, but is that your only purpose?

You said:

I don't find anything funny about SB's behavior

Here's a premise that needs checking with these three. (I could have said, "These three need to check a premise," but I'm beginning to like passive voice... it's so polite... )

From everything I've read so far, they base ALL of their interaction on a subtext, a...

False Premise: The readers care about what they think of each other.

False Corollary 1: The readers make character assessments based on the opinions they write in their bickering.

False Corollary 2: The readers find their bickering to be profound instead of petty.

You're wrong for the most part. I don't believe any of us give much thought to what the readers are thinking, but what's interesting are the different reasons each of us have for such cavalier disregard.

I have to take a moment to clear the record regarding one of Kacy's accusations. As RB said, there is too much revisionism in his narrative to correct in one post, but I simply have to address Kacy's broad-brush characterization of me as a socially inept fool. In addition to the facts already presented showing that RB and I were often ahead of the curve in certain respects, the truly ironic thing is that it was *I* who frequently had to admonish Kacy for launching into garrulous philosophical rants at the most inopportune times. As they say, there is a time and a place for everything, but Kacy's passion for atheism often manifested in his being the "buzzkill" in certain social situations. Most socially-adjusted people know what a "vibe" is and refrain from breaking it unless demanded by circumstance. Kacy's blind spot regarding this fact can be seen in his own admission here that he and his ex-wife used to bicker constantly in public. In both cases we see an egocentric mentality with little regard for the larger context. It should also be noted that his habit of constantly debating religious people wherever such could be found was eventually corrected by him and became another in his list of epiphanies which I never received any acknowledgement for. I understand he came to his realization himself, but it does become tiresome when one's own wisdom is given short shrift time and time again.

And if anyone senses a contradiction between my endorsement of the "larger social context" and the anti-social behavior I exhibit on this forum, I would point out that what we have here barely resembles the organic and wholistic dynamic found in meatspace. All I know of the other posters on this forum are their conscious declarations, therefore, I am unable to judge any (in)congruency between their statements and their behavior or lifestyle. As such, I look at this forum as a mental playground where ideas are the only coin of the realm (for the most part).

Now, as to why I find it fruitful to get a little more...uh...personal... with Kacy without regard to the readership here -- I will paraphrase what I said earlier: psychology is more fundamental than philosophy, and if we lose sight of this fact we run the risk of pointless pedantry. Getting at the motivational root of certain beliefs can be illustrative and impactful, as Nietzsche understood. For example, RB wrote:

The picture becomes even richer when we then self-examine, asking WHY Kacy's narrative is so different from our own. But Kacy never gets to that point in analysis. Instead he merely contents himself with maintaining his self-indulgent narrative, fat and happy like my namesake, as absolute ruler of his emotional realm. This is what is so frustrating to us. We're on a never-ending journey and Kacy has already reached his destination...

Brant took issue with this statement claiming that such a thing is not a philosophical divide but rather a divide based on psychology. So what? We are still left with a certain gap, or impasse, in our communication with Kacy. If we can't begin to understand the differences between ourselves as Objectivish people, what hope do we have to persuade those outside of our subculture? In this case, we see that much of Kacy's self-concept is tied up with a certain delimited perspective of the facts -- a perspective which excludes the reality of his being a government employee paid with tax money. I submit this observation has implications for the nature of self-esteem and its seemingly necessary usage of a kind of evasion (or restricted awareness) in maintaining its precarious balance. But that is a topic for another day.

With that out of the way, I would like to ask you (MSK) if you are prepared to speak about your experience in Kacy's so-called "echo chamber." I believe you have now had suitable time to get a feel for the tenor of the discussion there. Can you share with us your Solomon-like judgement?

Also he has, not a 'malevolent universe' premise, but a 'malevolent humanity' premise.

Nice distinction. I like it.

I stumbled across another thought provoking essay from Mencius Moldbug. Like PDS says, it's long as train smoke, but I think it's a good 'un.

From Mises to Carlyle: my sick journey to the dark side of the force

Core nugget:

Here is the Carlylean roadmap for the Misesian goal. Spontaneous order, also known as freedom, is the highest level of a political pyramid of needs. These needs are: peace, security, law, and freedom. To advance order, always work for the next step - without skipping steps. In a state of war, advance toward peace; in a state of insecurity, advance toward security; in a state of security, advance toward law; in a state of law, advance toward freedom.

(the commentariat is high-quality as well)

Do you mind if I ask a question. Do you and the other two stooges have any purpose here other than to argue amongst yourselves? You couldn't call what your doing an exchange of ideas. Do you follow each other from site to site? I mean, you're funny, but is that your only purpose?

Dear Ginny,

A point is reached in certain people's lives where the question is asked: "Does the 'exchange of ideas' do anything other than encourage a circle-jerk?"

It is at that point that we begin to look under the hood.

Hope that makes sense.

I've posted

I've never claimed to be a paragon of reason (despite what SB likes to pretend). I do claim to hold reason as a primary absolute, and the only conceptual basket in which I place almost all of my eggs.

Indeed. Reason is your "primary absolute" and upon which you lay most of your eggs...and it is with such "reason" you have attacked, belittled and denigrated folks who are less intelligent or less sophisticated than yourself, even though such people might have been good at heart.

BTW, hope you're enjoying the boundless adventure across the world in places like Israel, Greece and Italy....on all of our dimes.

Reason, like science, is only as good as the person exercising it. Being that we are all fallible and none of us are perfect in our execution, I recognize that I can make mistakes when attempting to apply reason. I'm also swayed by the same psychological forces that influence everyone else. These are variables in human ability, not in reason itself.

Interesting choice of words.

So "reason itself" exists apart from "human ability"?

You know, there are countless folks over at OO who really wish that guys like David Kelley (and the people on the forum) would stop calling themselves objectivists. They believe that people like Kelley and Branden (and the folks on this board) who embrace objectivist principles while refusing to swallow the ideology whole are the greatest gift that enemies of objectivism could ever ask for. They will engage self-described socialists while attempting to write Branden out of their own history.

Interestingly enough, this schism in Objectivism (over the purity/outreach debate) is of a piece with your own disdain for folks like Rand Paul and others for not being Perfect.

You and the Orthodox O's are simply different stripes of the same beach ball.

EDIT: I'll also note that you didn't draw any conclusions about this strategically signficant issue, choosing instead to focus on:

But do they hound the people I've named? Do they come here and troll and make demands on what we call ourselves? Do they constantly insist that we stop? Do they come here and demand that this forum change its name from "Objectivist Living" to "Libertarian Hedonistic Anarchist Living"?

No. They don't. Which makes them substantially less aggravating than the two of you.

In other words, you are less concerned with the philosophical issue RB and I are discussing than in focusing on how the Orthodox O's are not being Big Meanies about it.

SB

somebody call the whaaaaaambulance!

MSK - We can forgive you for not being famliar with the "process." Kacy can ultimately be saved from himself and has been in the past. It just takes *years* of wearing down his mental defenses through attrition. He has to be dragged kicking and screaming to a conclusion, but ultimately, like a stubborn mule, he will come. We had countless arguments in which Kacy railed against Dale Carnegie's methods of conflict resolution - now he accepts them. He relentlessly ridiculed SB and me for our study of seduction literature and social dynamics - now he concedes it has a place. I endured a decade of verbal abuse for suggesting he cut back on his alcohol consumption. A few years ago, a revelatory post appeared on his Facebook page about how he had come to precisely that conclusion, lamenting all the wasted time, money, and social opportunities. I never got any credit, of course - or an apology for that matter - but simply being vindicated was its own reward in the end. A year from now - or maybe the year after that - he will cease his war against libertarian conservatives and recognize progressivism as the true defining political threat of our time.

Oh, you missed the best one -- our arguments over "whining.". My attempts to educate were predictably shot down with never ending sophistry. -- until, that is, he caught flak from his coworkers. THEN, at that point he "saw the light"...and rather than credit me with any insight, proceeded to lecture others on their misguided notions regarding whining vs. legitimate complaining.

::rolls eyes::

You guys really like ragging Kacy, huh?

I wonder what you all were like when you were younger...

(I have a suggestion, but it's only that and I have a feeling I'm offering it in vain. Repeat after me, 50 times a day, "We'll just have to agree to disagree." )

Michael

(more seriously though, he would avoid our attacks if he would simply stop calling himself a libertarian. I don't think of liberals as all bad, and Kacy has good points to make, but it is his attempt to gain the social cachet of being a libertarian "rebel" while at the same time ingratiating himself with his many liberal friends that causes RB and I much intestinal discomfort).

Here's the passage I mentioned in post #160 from Nathaniel's memoir.

It's on pp. 45-46 of Judgment Day and pp. 37-38 of MYWAR. The only differences I noticed between the two versions are minor: a few slight punctuation changes , one word-order change, a preposition change, and the dropping of italics for NB's answers "Oh, yes" and "Of course."

Ayn said that there were three questions she wanted to ask me, questions that touched on the essentials of how one saw human existence. What did I think of reason? What did I think of man? What did I think of life?

[skipping the part about reason]

"When you ask me what I think of man," I said, proceeding to her second question, "I'm not sure I know what you mean." She explained that she meant, Did I think man was evil by nature or good? I found the question odd; I did not believe either. I thought that we were born with a potential for evil or for greatness. I did not believe in original sin, and I did not believe in original virtue. Frank broke his silence to laugh at this. She said she agreed with me, but this was not what she was asking. Did the concept of human being or man evoke a positive response in me or a negative one? "Put that way, I would say a positive one," I responded. Did I see man as depraved by nature? Of course I didn't. Did I see him as heroic, at least potentially? "Oh, yes." This satisfied her.

As to what I thought of life, this meant, Did I see life as malevolent or benevolent? Again, I thought the question strange, explaining that I saw life as neutral and as containing both malevolent and benevolent possibilities. But, Ayn asked, I did not think of existence as intrinsically evil? "Of course not." I did not think that the universe was such that man was doomed to defeat and tragedy? "No." Did I think that life was such that success and happiness were in principle possible for man, if man acted rationally and realistically? "Of course." This is what she meant, she explained, by the concept of a benevolent universe. "The benevolent universe premise," she called it.

"I hate the idea," she said in her thick accent, "that the essence if life is frustration, futility, and tragedy. It's very Russian, you know. That's one of the reasons I love America. In the American sense of life, happiness is normal. With all its flaws and contradictions, this is a pro-life culture. In spite of the guff about religion, I believe it's also pro-reason and pro-man, in its deepest 'instincts.'"

Ellen

I've been accused of having a Russian soul on more than one occasion.

Alice Rosenbaum had the soul of a Jew -- utopian idealism.

Bob, honest question: do you think U.S. troops would be willing to fire upon American citizens?

( I can see it now: Kacy popping his head out of tank and demanding that Robert Baratheon and I be a part of their Benevolent Grand Experiment)

between 1861 and 1865 that is exactly what happened. Why can't it happen again?

Umm... maybe because the issues at stake in the present are utterly different than those during the lead up to the Civil War?

Also, no one took up the question of whether and to what extent any of the 50 states is better than the federal government at protecting or even respecting your rights. So, in the absence of disagreement, do those points stand?

Mark Steyn, for one, warns of a secession if this country continues crawling towards socialism.

Any State the attempts secession will be visited by Federal troops and members of its government will be subject to charges of treason and insurrection. That last time States tried this there was a war that crippled or killed over 4 percent of the population.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob, honest question: do you think U.S. troops would be willing to fire upon American citizens?

( I can see it now: Kacy popping his head out of tank and demanding that Robert Baratheon and I be a part of their Benevolent Grand Experiment)

Also, no one took up the question of whether and to what extent any of the 50 states is better than the federal government at protecting or even respecting your rights. So, in the absence of disagreement, do those points stand?

Mark Steyn, for one, warns of a secession if this country continues crawling towards socialism.

Michael:

I just love the Somalia drug dealer spin.

One of my major disagreements with big "L" libertarians is their open boarders borders stance.

A...

Possibly of interest to you:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/libertarianism-conservatism-and-immigration-the-hoppe-solution

(Paging Robert Baratheon)

I called her out. Her response:

And no, I didn't say that religious belief should be punishable, I simply think that religious organizations should not have the right to convince bodies of people into any action without a burden of proof of some result.

Sounds like your kinda gal, Kacy!

If you're ever interested in explaining how Rand Paul and Paul Ryan are supposedly a bigger threat to our freedom than say, Barbara Boxer and Sheila Jackson Lee, you know where to find us.

C'mon Kaeshee!

We're waiting for you...

Perhaps a propos...(?)

I was just reading one of my liberal-leaning Facebook friend's status updates. He linked to an essay discussing a recent controversial article which relayed (in detail) the goings-on of a public "sex party" in San Francisco -- said "party" involving the consent of a young girl to be violently and sexually "abused" by a dominatrix, Dom, and members of the audience. (Link here. NSFW)

I don't mean to get into a discussion of the ethics involved at the "party". I bring it up because this friend of mine is generally sensible (even though a liberal), and in the discussion he tagged one of his (I presume) more "out-there" progressive/liberal female aquaintances. In the ensuing discussion about "consent", he linked to the infamous Armin Meiwes sexual cannibalism case. (Link here, NSF LIFE )

I'll call this female progressive Natalia. Natalia writes:

It has nothing to do with morals, or religion, or social acceptance. It's in our evolutionary makeup to find people who gain pleasure from the same things that give us pleasure. There isn't more "extreme sex" happening, it's just more widely talked about. The people who are interested in violent or degrading behavior aren't going to suddenly going to stop wasting it because you tell them it's wrong and the people who aren't interested in those interactions aren't going to suddenly wake up one day and decide to be beaten, humiliated, and violated because society thinks it's ok. It really is all about consent.

Ok, somewhat muddled thinking as we usually find among progressives (particularly the female version), but really not much different than the Oist/Libertarian emphasis on individualism and free choice.

Natalia continues:

That said, I don't think Armin Meiwes should have been convicted. It was a victimless crime, despite how the families feel about it. Armin didn't /take/ the other man's life, the other man /gave/ his life for the benefit of mutual pleasure.

Wow. That's pretty "out-there". An obvious application of "consent" thinking to the extreme. But I'll reserve judgement for the moment.

What I found most interesting however was when another commenter brought up the issue of religious groups and the phenomenon of persuasion in said groups. Her reply:

IMO, all religious activity should be considered fraudulent and punishable by law.

WHA....???????

I'm not sure how much of this is relevent to Kacy's personal philosophy, so I'll leave it at that for others to discuss.

Coincidence? I dunno. But I'm sure their motives are pure.

Simply because he pays Christianity some lipservice at fundraising events and doesn't unequivocally support legalization of drugs is a rather silly basis to blast him through social media while far worse offenders are ignored.

Indeed, which is why I have repeatedly told him in the past, "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good"

The message doesn't seem to be taking.

Ditto.

That being said, the Libertarians are going to need a reality check and adopt an incremental versus an all-or-nothing approach to politics.

The Libertarian Party, like all U.S. third parties, has no practical chance of achieving mainstream success. But what we are seeing now is a shift within the Republican Party, which is of mainstream consequence, away from Bush's expansionist "neoconservativism" and toward small-government principles that libertarians can actually get behind. Beck, Rand Paul, and the Tea Party are the major driving force behind this ideological shift (a profoundly positive development), but Kacy feels it necessary to relentlessly attack them instead of the progressive politicians and pundits who unabashedly spend their every waking moment trying to expand the power of the state.

Isn't it more logical that the targets of our ire be prioritized based on harm and the real threat they pose to our liberties?

In addition, he believes our concerns about economic collapse are examples of catastrophic thinking and a result of fear mongering. It is only natural then for him to focus on the freedom to watch porn and do drugs.

This raises the question of why his concerns about the "imminent Christian theocracy" are any more or less "fear mongering" than our claims of economic catastrophe, but that is something only he can answer.

CAUGHT ON VIDEO: Robert Baratheon interviews Serapis Bey for the local paper:

;)

addendum:

I'm also sure he could dig up some offensive Biblical passage in support of his argument,

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, let me point out the Birdman is no Christian -- he's an atheist and a skeptic who has written articles/books eviscerating theism. He is a high-IQ member of Mensa who started something of a kerfuffle in that subcommunity by writing about the Jewish Question in one of their publications. He was predictably hanged in the public square (see here ) and responded to his critics in a later issue (here).

Like myself, he is simply someone who recognizes the social benefit of traditional norms like Christianity in an increasingly insane world where progressive utilitarian accounting is the order of the day.

(Going somewhat OT for a moment: I know you are a fan of Nassim Taleb. Here is a nice review/discussion of his Black Swan. It seems his ideas could do much for the conservative/right-libertarian cause, i.e., using science to show the limits of "Reason" and modern man's hubris in relation to such. Just some red meat for you to chew on as I prepare my next salvo in this thread.)

But there's difference between disagreeing and antagonizing. I know that you recognize SB's behavior as antagonizing. I know he recognizes it as well. But you both seem to be continuing to justify it, as though I'm at fault for refusing to be continually antagonized. This is consistent with narcissistic tendencies.

Actually, it's consistent with me being a dick and not caring about about how other people feel about my pronouncements.

That's not narcissism. That's INTEGRITY.

It would be narcissism if I considered other people's mistaken thinking in any way relevant to my own independent judgement.

I consider it a form of honor to think of others as similarly independent minded and not easily cowed by my opinions.

This thread serves as a good learning point, actually. Notice my OP. Now notice the first substantive comment, made my MSK. It was a speculation on my motives, but it did not lump me into an entire ideology that I reject. It focused instead on me and what I was saying.

Now notice the second substantive point, make by dldelancey. Again, absent of antagonistic language. It provided useful information on the topic.

Then, after I expressed a bit of surprise that I couldn't find anyone at all to agree at least with my sentiment (if not my proposition), jts chimed in. Again, expressing disagreement. Again, absent of provocation.

All of your comments were similarly absent of provocation.

As was Brant.

As was WhyNOT

And on and on. So I'm not crazy, I'm not making this up, and I'm not somehow miscalibrated.

A troll is someone who antagonizes a person or group of people for the sake of antagonism, with any exchange of ideas being only a by-product of secondary relevance. .

But SB has made it clear that he intends to troll me (if not the forum), and I have no compunction about ending that process.

[...]

But who do you think has generated any real persuasion in my mind? SB? Or everyone else here except for him?

Hint - SB has not spent one moment addressed the OP or it's relative merits (or lack thereof). Every comment has been about me. "Liberals like Kacy..." etc....

What you are missing is that all the OL folks you reference above have not spent YEARS engaging you in many of the same debates, topics, arguments, etc.

On the other hand, I (and to a lesser extent RB) have done just that. He and I have gone round and round with your liberal tendencies, and despite whatever protestations of yours to the contrary, we have good reasons to support our position.

I suspect that if the individuals you mention above had the same time and experience (and frustration) arguing with your liberal tendencies, that they too would reach a point were it became obvious that further discussion would be fruitless. There is nothing wrong with throwing your hands up in frustration. It doesn't mean one has "abandoned reason" or one has "conceded the argument". It merely means a point has been reached where further discussion would simply be a masochistic and altruistc act to help another person out of their incorrect thinking -- in short, one would be attempting to correct a "cybernetic program" as MSK puts it, for...what exactly? What would be the payoff?

I'm quite sure there are numerous examples in Objectivism-Land where individuals reach an impasse and realize that further good-faith debate would merely serve to sanction the legitimacy of the other side. In such cases, all that one can do is merely state one's disagreement, name the "Other" for what he/she is, and leave it at that.

I simply go one step further and indulge my sadistic impuse to keep poking that salty stick into the wound for my own amusement.

But none of this should be construed as "trolling" in the sense of saying things that are untrue just to get a rise out of people.

I say things that are IN FACT true, precisely to get a rise out of people. Sorry you don't see it that way.

p.s. YOR a fucken liberal.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347945/irs-targeted-conservatives-2012?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

At the risk of sounding like a broken record -- can you imagine if it were Democrats the IRS flagged for audits? Can you imagine the OUTRAGE and CONSTANT editorials about the damnable Republicans who hold power in this country? The public discourse would be FLOODED with opinion pieces and neverending Facebook memes.

In this case, however, it will simply be swept down the memory hole and die a quite death.

And according to Kacy, it well should be, since we are talking about Tea Party folks here, and since the Tea Partiers represent a threat to Freedom with their advocacy of Christian Theocracy, it is only just that a government devoted to religious freedom do all they can to thwart such subversive activity.