Branden's High Points (misleading title by OP)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Heh.

You ask a loaded question like that to a person with my knowledge, given your former interactions with me over years?

Heh again.

No use trying to manipulate me.

It ain't gonna work.

I suggest you stop lying to yourself, and stop trying to manipulate others for attention, but I believe you have a ways to go first.

Hey, I have an idea!

Here's a question.

Have you ever felt like a martyr fighting the good fight for reason and Objectivism against blindness and persecution?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

For a Garbage Pile thread, the length of this one must be a record. All bow down to the essential vitality of P. Coates!

--Brant

who's kidding?

[william.scherk]

Subject: Difference Between Strong Criticism and Psychologizing/Moralizing Character Attacks

I'm glad George snipped a paragraph of mine from the old OWL list. Even as early as '04 I was likely to make **very frank and forceful criticisms** of people in the movement - Peikoff, Kelley, Rand - and also of minor figures -George- and also of posters on the list:

"...points known to those of us already

...excessively wordy

...not relevant to the central point

...go off on tangents."

I think that is the main reason people took enormous offense and started responding in heated attacks on my honesty, character, etc. They wanted to escalate to nuclear weapons.

It's revealing that almost everyone who now engages in character or moral or psychologizing (Michael's recent post that I'm neurotically just "seeking attention" is a classic example) attacks on me are people that I have harshly criticized in the past.

( No better way to get an intellectual to hate you for life than to tell him he has done some poor writing or thinking. Been sloppy. Needs to pay attention. Made a rationalistic argument. Needs to do more research. )

And I really did stir up an enormous amount of outrage on OWl, Atlantis, Solo, etc. It takes a certain amount of suspension of ego to be able to take criticism.

Especially if it cuts deep or is about an area where you take a great deal of pride - like what a genius you think you are.

I gotta be honest once more. I read all this gurp and then I went all hypnotized. I was like, "Yeah, but you know how a vampire can't be seen in a mirror, right?" Then I go, "So, can a vampire see himself in a mirror, too? -- if we can see him in the room but not in the mirror we still don't know what he sees himself, right?".

******************************

There is a kind of autism here in Phil, no? I mean, what else can explain this exquisite perception of slights and 'attacks' (on his vast sliding scale from friendly to nuclear) from people he has nagged and hectored for the last (it seems) three decades -- but few empathetic guesses or surmised reports of other's wounds. Indeed a disinterest in the 'gossip' of wounds and slights of others, in the nuts and bolts of how tragic situations evolve. .

Phil, do you see what we see in yourself? Is there the slightest fog of a resemblance between the Degenerates (I mean everybody to whom you offered your tirades and snits and general sighing grumpypants rants over the centuries in your long incarnation and bloodsucking and stalking the earth looking for humans to sap)? Do you hold thoughts that you are a Titan?

Well, there should be none.

Each of the Titans at whom you have thundered your critique (as The Bravest Man In The Universe) has at least written a book (yes, a book! A book --- a full noxious stinking error-laden rotten pig-belly soaked in the ignorant sloughs of error and degeneracy and Turning Away and cowardice and stupidity and bad notes and lesser skill with the ladies to which I applied my Corrections in the most stunning blows against Error that the world has ever seen, though I have been, like all genius, derided, locked in towers, banished, tortured, locked in other towers, forced to pay taxes, refused service at Texaco in LA because of Incident Two, ignored by Peikoff that fool and David Kelley that hypocrite and by Ed Hudgins that gladhander and MSK whose noisome blog is such a cesspit of snakes and mud and human feces and insects and cunts that I vomit and have left and come back nine times so far, mistreated by the fools and anklebiters and bad French spelkers such as otherwise-nice WSS whom I will patronize and suffer memory lapses of great fugue-depth stupor when he asks me to look at the mirror and what does he know anyway, what does he know of being attacked with nuclear weapons and so on, I say, attacked unjustly when all I do is point out errors) but you have not written a book.

They have published articles and maybe even more than one book. Books, articles (some published in gasp newspapers, though mostly lesser things like refereed journals) and chapters in books and recorded speeches and videos and television appearances and radio spots and vast public speaking and instruction experience, ostensibly learned (though all gravely in error) in a few cases, including such useless trifles as advanced degrees) and perhaps even taught at a long dreary roadshow of third-tier campus contracts instead of your calm, secure position at the Vanguard.

Phil, your stance towards your betters and your peers is collossally ignorant and hypocritical across the board and evinces a hideous emptiness in your heart, an autistic lack of awareness of the entire musical tone and heritage of human social engagement - the time for harmony, when discord is sad and piquant, what tones arouse, which calm, why we lullaby ...

It is appalling that you continue to imprison yourself in mazes of faulty social judgements that you must obsessively repeat over and over and over again. It must be torture for you, and perhaps this residual pain of misunderstanding is what fuels your lesson plan, your recurring lesson, its sadistic undertones and its masochistic refrains. Do you not hurt yourself when you throw yourself against the wall again and again, Phil? What door are you trying to open? How are you trying to instruct us?

The same autistic lesson plan delivered to a classroom of pupils (not even students), as you cow them, correct them, rap their little knuckles, give them tasks and purse your lips and mark them and correct them and sometimes shame them and try to make them feel small and stupid next to you?

Who are you, what are you to try to lure folks into your manic self-torture routines? Are you the equivalent of a bloodsucker in the world of books and articles and philosophy, a mould, an infection or infestation, are you a vampire offshoot of humanity that cannot see itself in a mirror?

You have never published a fucking professional review-grade look at an author in your fucking life. You have never published an article in a journal. You have never published a chapter in a book. You have never published a monograph. You have never published your own 'articles' or commentary on your own dime, under your own name, on your own terms, in your own fucking nightmare fantasy autistic schoolhouse of pain and repetition and obedience here on the fucking internet. You have never started a blog. You have never implemented one single suggestion anyone has given you in terms of producing some published material in the long seven-hundred years of your haunting this earth, in all the aeons of time that you have nursed like a bedbug on the achievements of humanity)

Phil, the best that can be said about your haunting is that your initial innocence and benevolence and loveliness of spirit (all of which were deformed by Objectivism's cruelties, of course) sometimes lurches into a Mrs Grundy Groundhog Day horror movie loop. The worst is that you feel you have a right of cultured response from those whom you reduce to extras in your script, a right to cast the kings as slave boys, schoolmarms as empresses, pioneers as stumblers, and have everyone sing perfectly songs you cannot even mumble ...

You have no right to that, friend. In the scheme of things, you have reason to note your basic value as a human being, your independent ways, your own achievements, your own songs. You have an acknowledged right to your voice and your script and your own dance.

But you have no right to expect anyone to follow you into your crazy schoolhouse like hamsters, Phil. Your wild torture fantasies can never be implemented. Although we are Degenerate, we are not always hamsters.

*******************

MSK, thank you for underlining the freedom we have to get on the carousel, to feed the monkey when the signs clearly say Do Not Feed The Monkey.

Am I feeding this thing, this vampire creature of ancient vintage? If I am, I should make the decision to uncap and plunge my thumb down on this red button here? Right now as I look at this button, I think to myself. I do not want this spawn of humanity to suffer or die. I wish him no active harm. I only want him to be fully human.

You see, ordinary humans see themselves not only in the mirror, but in the actions and emotions of other humans. They learn to read the entire landscape the way a coyote or monkey learns. It takes or it doesn't. A runt or sport falls early, usually. With we primates, the ability to understand yourself, to see yourself in the mirror, compare your interior thoughts to your exterior actions, remember the errors, the lessons of bites and pummellings and smiles and cuddling, build response repertoires to aggression, learn and implement strategies of alliance and mutual aid, of trust and commitment -- these are gifts of the mirror and gifts to our lives that even runts and orphans can use to their advantage.

Anyway, before I uncap and impose a Nuclear Winter on Phil, before I actually blank out his crankery and belligerence for a while, I need to badger some more. Not about vampirism or if he sees himself in the mirror, but the question I implicitly ask him in my kinder missives -- what exactly does he think will happen to him if he admits a fault and makes amends? Will he die? Will he suddenly contract COPD and be unable to breathe normally? Will his limbs begin to wither?

************************

I think of me and George and entire cast of OL gathered in a vast saloon (in Chicago) considering the multiple implications of the seven-century mystery of People Like Phil, while Phil is brought up to the bar, English-style, in suit and sober, from the dungeons of detention (barrel cellar) below.

George, as ceremonial Tryer on this instance of the ancient boozy ritual evening of What Can We Do About Those Kinds Of People, examines Phil from the ceremonial Try table. He puts to him this question:

Will Our Friend Try The Question put to him over these last nights in these precincts? [NB -- now, according to lore and anthropology some seven centuries]

Will Our Friend Answer The Question?

[again according to lore and documents stored in London's magnificent Coates Library (now revealed by recent deep excavation to also be the site of ancient pre-Pictish torture-cult classroom pits). Coatsism's links to and the implications to the blood-drinking practices of pre-Dorset culture still remain hotly debated after some forty years, having slumbered for some time since the validation of Yershitstinkztuyunov's hypothesis that People Like Phil colleges were established in Warsaw and Lodz in the late 12th century. I have no fucking clue about this stuff.

What I do have a clue about is that the person playing the Person Like Phil refuses to answer the question, hoists his drink for a slog, asserts that the question was not actually asked properly anyway, formally refuses to acknowledge that the question had merit, takes another slog, calls the assembled the sick, degenerate and demented for presuming to question him, since he Had Asked The First Question and that subsequent aeons of bitching had obscured this fact. One more final juddering slog of his drink and then he lets forth a barrage of invective, declares All Of You Are Fucked, There Is Nothing Wrong With Me That Wasn't Started By You Know Who, and slams the beer-cellar door on his way back down to his remand facilities.

Of course, moments later the Phil character is assisted back upstairs, in civilian clothes and then commences the final segment of the boozy ritual, a free-wheeling Why Are People Like That session.]

*********************

My gawd, have I run on. I really cannot keep feeding the monkey. Stop looking at the monkey's sad eyes. Think of the monkey free and independent of my human intervention, happy, how I harm the monkey by interceding in his natural behaviour. Why am I in the Monkey House on New Year's Eve?

Sigh. I raise my New Year horn. I toot. I think across the ether to Phil's mirror, how it waits for him, how it sparkles. How it can instruct him, how he can see himself in others, how he can see others in himself, letting go of the hauntings of his own mind, of failure, rejection, frustration, loneliness, dread of the unmarked plot of an unsung hero ...

I shall see you the next time they bring you up from the pit, Phil my sad monkey. Don't see how you can consolidate your audience if you do not really like your audience and they really don't like you too much when you get like this, but hey. I will be seeking a brisk reconnoitre on the Seniors Deck Promenade on the HMS Torment when I return you from oblivion, when I'm next found on Endless Torture Cruises' To Nowhere And Back, Forever.

Edited January 1, 2012 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Some of your stream-of-consciousness style (when you do it) reminds me of James Joyce.

Except I think you do it better.

I'm serious.

Obviously, I'm judging based on the Joyce I have read, which is not enough for me to be an expert, but enough to be familiar.

At least I know what you're talking about, and that's saying something when referring to utterances in this style.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> William, Some of your stream-of-consciousness style (when you do it) reminds me of James Joyce. Except I think you do it better. [MSK]

Yes he does. That last post was really quite eloquent, quite inspired. Quite brilliant in fact!

(So much so that I didn't really mind the beating I was taking.)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

The day you understand (really understand in your heart) that what William did is not a beating, was not intended to be a beating, and has not one smidgin of competition in it, is the day a very good thing in your life will start to happen.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Phil,

The day you understand (really understand in your heart) that what William did is not a beating, was not intended to be a beating, and has not one smidgin of competition in it, is the day a very good thing in your life will start to happen.

Michael

That's why his post is so long. Us Phil beaters are succinct.

--Brant

take that and that and that!!!!

[caroljane]

William,

Some of your stream-of-consciousness style (when you do it) reminds me of James Joyce.

Except I think you do it better.

I'm serious.

Obviously, I'm judging based on the Joyce I have read, which is not enough for me to be an expert, but enough to be familiar.

At least I know what you're talking about, and that's saying something when referring to utterances in this style.

Michael

There is some Joyceanism. But it's pure Scherk, and para 5 especially approaches another WS.

Lyrical, frantic, hilarious, deeply pathetic and empathetic, furious, glorious.

[9thdoctor]

There is a kind of autism here in Phil, no?

I think you ought to lay off the autistic. They have it hard enough without being compared to Phil.

I shall see you the next time they bring you up from the pit, Phil my sad monkey.

Monkey's aren't so bad either.

[Philip Coates]

I don't agree in the slightest with the central lese majeste point of William here (and others in other posts) about the inappropriateness of "constantly criticizing your betters".

But he makes the point very powerfully and vividly - and in a number of different, inventive ways:

1. Among the things that make this well-written are his long lists separated by commas. They reinforce each other and make each other stronger: "like all genius, derided, locked in towers, banished, tortured, locked in other towers, forced to pay taxes, refused service at Texaco in LA because of Incident Two, ignored by Peikoff that fool and David Kelley that hypocrite and by Ed Hudgins that gladhander and MSK whose noisome blog is such a cesspit of snakes and mud and human feces and insects and cunts that I vomit and have left and come back nine times so far, mistreated by the fools and anklebiters and bad French spelkers such as otherwise-nice WSS whom I will patronize..."

2. His parallellism and images are effective: "you feel you have a right of cultured response from those whom you reduce to extras in your script, a right to cast the kings as slave boys, schoolmarms as empresses, pioneers as stumblers, and have everyone sing perfectly songs you cannot even mumble..."

3. He expands the 'schoomarm' metaphor and makes it more effective: "The same autistic lesson plan delivered to a classroom of pupils (not even students), as you cow them, correct them, rap their little knuckles, give them tasks and purse your lips and mark them and correct them and sometimes shame them and try to make them feel small and stupid next to you?"

4. The huge gap between how the person he is writing a "takedown" of sees himself (The Bravest Man in the Universe) and how the writer sees him by contrast (A Sad Little Monkey) is striking. And vivid.

5. William's images are sometimes laugh out loud funny - "[you] try to lure folks into your manic self-torture routines"..."a Mrs Grundy Groundhog Day horror movie loop" - at least I found them funny.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't agree in the slightest with the central lese majeste point of William here (and others in other posts) about the inappropriateness of "constantly criticizing your betters".

Phil,

Let's remember the correct meaning we saw under the magnifying glass as we swirl it around the room to examine something else (like William's style).

I don't believe for a minute William was talking about "criticizing your betters" in terms of the whole human being. He was not saying that you, Phil, are an inferior human being to anyone else.

I do believe he was talking about criticizing the efforts and intents of someone who has much more knowledge, skill and achievement in a specific area than you do. Before a master craftsman, you, I and everyone else have our "betters."

So if you are going to lecture a published author about how he should write and publish (as a hypothetical example that is not too controversial so we can stay on point), you would be a lot more credible to him and to the public if you had some works published under your own belt.

But when you try to lecture him on elementary stuff that he learned in the first year of his profession, you become silly to everyone. When you get it wrong or proclaim misleading overgeneralizations to him (which happens a lot with you), your comments become surreal and ridiculous. And when you insist on such positions and start in with your rationalizations and demeaning the intelligence of the people who suggest you study a bit before trying to teach a master his craft, you get irritating. That's how this stuff always escalates.

People don't like it when bluffers get caught and still try to bluff their way out of it.

A master is your better in his field unless you are a master in that field, too. Skill takes study and practice--lots and lots of it, not just opinion. You piss people off when you disrespect that.

Michael

[caroljane]

Phil,

So if you are going to lecture a published author about how he should write and publish (as a hypothetical example that is not too controversial so we can stay on point), you would be a lot more credible to him and to the public if you had some works published under your own belt

A master is your better in his field unless you are a master in that field, too. Skill takes study and practice--lots and lots of it, not just opinion. You piss people off when you disrespect that.

Michael

I agree on these points, up to a point.

The hard slog and effort of getting published should be acknowledged, and a body of work admired for the accomplishment it is.

But in the single aspect of writing skills, I think everyone can be a critic nowadays. Phil's analysis of Bill's piece shows he is a good critic of structural elements.

Also, being published nowadays (I'm not referring to NB of course), is not necessarily an accomplishment when so many authors self-publish. Some of these works are brilliant but more are not. Some are not even edited and are virtually unreadable.

Such credentials don't qualify for automatic admiration of the author. I am not aware that WSS has ever published anything either (I could be wrong) but it is obvious to me that his writing is superior to much of what I read from published sources. I haven't published either, but I feel qualified to say this because I have spent the majority of my life reading, and that's not an exaggeration - but I don't think I have to flash my reading certificates either.

Also, skill may require practice but I don't think it requires much study. In the area of writing, hard work does not necessarily equal good work.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

I was not saying you have to avoid discussion or critique with a master craftsman. Hell, I do it all the time.

I am saying you look ridiculous when you (general you, not you you), who have not published anything, tell a published author, especially a successful one who is highly intelligent, that he needs to be careful about choosing an agent as if this were something new--or tell him that people should not listen to music while they write because they will not be able to produce anything worth reading that way or be able to sell it. Then, when the author says he listens to music all the time while he writes, start telling him that he didn't understand the point. Then when the author produces studies that show that music increases the flow between left and right brain with some people and this actually improves their writing, say you don't need to read such a study to understand it. (And so on to eternity)

I'm being hypothetical, but Phil does this kind of crap all the time. (I'm avoiding actual quotes right now so Phil will not derail the conversation with rationalizations of them.)

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Put up or Shut up

> When you get it wrong or proclaim misleading overgeneralizations to him (which happens a lot with you) [MSK]

That's the real point, so what do you think I'm wildly wrong about? It's whether the criticisms are correct not that no one should dare criticize a published writer or criticize someone with credentials without having them. After all, what matters is the truth of one's points. You can criticize Rand's writing or that of F. Scott Fitzgerald or James Joyce without having written novels, right?

So - here's a challenge:

What's the biggest "misleading" or gross misunderstanding of the work of my "betters" have you seen me make? One that you know *of your own first hand knowledge*. Not because you are deferring to "the master" as you put it? Pick one or two really obvious ones.

Pick something simple so that it's crystal clear. Not terribly debatable or arcane. Can you do that?

[Philip Coates]

> tell him that people should not listen to music while they write because they will not be able to produce anything worth reading that way or be able to sell it. Then, when the author says he listens to music all the time while he writes, start telling him that he didn't understand the point.

Whoa! Hello!...You can't MAKE UP SHIT!!!!!!!!!

Where the fuck did I say something crackpot like you shouldn't listen to music while writing??

Talk about a smear. That's like saying Ron Paul advocates cooking and eating black people. "We, he didn't really SAY that exactly. But in his newsletters I know I could find something really racist."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That's easy, Phil,

I can start with marketing.

You have been all over the map with that.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> (I'm avoiding actual quotes right now so Phil will not derail the conversation with rationalizations of them.)

Wow!!! Avoiding actual facts AND ACTUAL QUOTES so I can't confuse you poor people by defending myself so skillfully that no one will be able to see the rationalizations.

I didn't know I was that much of a Svengali that you can't use my actual positions against me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(I'm avoiding actual quotes right now so Phil will not derail the conversation with rationalizations of them.)

Carol,

How's the following for a knee-jerk?

It's exactly what I'm talking about.

Whoa! Hello!

You can't MAKE UP SHIT!!!!!!!!!

Where the fuck did I say that??

Note: It looks like he changed his post (oops) made a new post (oops again) changed his post and made a new post after the knee-jerk.

(I hope that now stays the same...)

Now he's going off on rationalizations about not using quotes and sidestepping the point.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

I just can't overcome my disgust at this.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just can't overcome my disgust at this.

Phil,

If you want to play games with the big boys, you can't bluff.

You're self-deception is in my territory. Been there. Done that. (EDIT: AA, NA and several other places.)

I've personally seen thousands of others who have done the same. It's all been an identical process to what you are doing.

You think you're disgusted now? It will only get worse if you keep trying to keep the game going in front of me.

Michael

[caroljane]

Sigh. I was going to suggest this thread had redeemed itself from the GP with the diversion into literature, but now it looks like we're going to be down here for a while.

[caroljane]

I just can't overcome my disgust at this.

Yes, you can. You have done it before and you can do it again.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, you can. You have done it before and you can do it again.

Carol,

The problem is I'm not allowing him to blame it all on others and get away with it right now. His problems lead back to him, not to others. And I'm making it so he can see a glimpse of it for real. That stings more than you can know from where he's at.

I don't like doing this, but there's no other way. Call it tough love.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, you can. You have done it before and you can do it again.

Carol,

The problem is I'm not allowing him to blame it all on others and get away with it right now. His problems lead back to him, not to others. And I'm making it so he can see a glimpse of it for real. That stings more than you can know from where he's at.

I don't like doing this, but there's no other way. Call it tough love.

Michael

How will you handle success? Rehab?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I won't handle such success.

I handle the forum.

Phil wants to play neurotic games here in front of the OL audience at the expense of OL regulars and even the forum, so he gets what he gets.

But I know where he's at, so I just can't kick him like a mangy dog like other places have done. And I like him. He's got a good mind when he uses it for ideas. But he won't stop the crap. So I'm doing something positive about it that serves both OL and Phil, even though it might look like a kick on the surface.

To be clear, however, my priority is OL, not Phil.

And I really dislike it when people treat the OL audience like a pack of fools.

Michael