Rand through a Nietzsche filter

[Xray]

Good fun on Solo just now. I don't mind giving it the hits as I read it at least weekly anyway, and there are some intelligent, articulate posters there. The visits of Ghs, Brant and Xray have greatly increased my enjoyment there this week and I would like to thank them.

My pleasure, Carol. It hadn't been to Solo for some time. I must say I was quite surprised to see a confirmed theist ('Burnsy') trying to make the 'Case for God' over there.

[Xray]

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?

Janet,

All I did was look for more 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) assumption that it was a correct translation. It was actually a mistranslation.

Aphoristic writing beckons to be learned by heart, as does poetry. Rand learned Nietzsche by heart.

While Rand's writings may show some Nietzschean thought, aren't here also many points where she was diametrically opposed to him?

For example, didn't Nietzsche propagate a-morality ("Beyond Good and Evil"?). Whereas for Rand, morality was essential.

And didn't Nietsche also attack reason?

[caroljane]

Good fun on Solo just now. I don't mind giving it the hits as I read it at least weekly anyway, and there are some intelligent, articulate posters there. The visits of Ghs, Brant and Xray have greatly increased my enjoyment there this week and I would like to thank them.

My pleasure, Carol. It hadn't been to Solo for some time. I must say I was quite surprised to see a confirmed theist ('Burnsy') trying to make the 'Case for God' over there.

Good fun on Solo just now. I don't mind giving it the hits as I read it at least weekly anyway, and there are some intelligent, articulate posters there. The visits of Ghs, Brant and Xray have greatly increased my enjoyment there this week and I would like to thank them.

My pleasure, Carol. It hadn't been to Solo for some time. I must say I was quite surprised to see a confirmed theist ('Burnsy') trying to make the 'Case for God' over there.

Good heavens! When I frist started reading there, a christian lady was posting all the time, andI mean all the time. Finally she went to a party at Lindsay's place and apparently they got drunk and had a fight, and she never came back on solo. I must admit I skim a lot there but I would not have thought a Burnsy was a Deist, the name suggests more a satanist to my mind,-- ok, no irony. Hell or heaven? One or both?

"from what I've tasted of desire

I'd be inclined to answer fire'''''

(Frost)_

You must peruse my groundbreaking Lizard/Penguin Hypothethisis of Variable Hyperthmereality, published in the Journal of Notional Regioneurotics, Vol.111 pp112-133.

[seymourblogger]

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?

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.

[caroljane]

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?

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?

[seymourblogger]

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?

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?

[caroljane]

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?

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.

[seymourblogger]

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?

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.

[caroljane]

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?

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.

You're welcome.

[seymourblogger]

If that's the truth, should it be spoke or just inferred?

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..

[Xray]

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.

<...>

In the Order of Seduction there are no contradictions.

It was the contradiction in the name of the chief that had peaked my interest. But doesn't from "In the Order of Seduction there are no contradictions", follow that I must have examined this issue in the "Order of Production" then?

[replying to Brant]

In fact there is no truth.

But the words "in fact" you have used refer to just that: the existence of a truth.

Truth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with fact or reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

[Brant Gaede]

If that's the truth, should it be spoke or just inferred?

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

[seymourblogger]

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.

<...>

In the Order of Seduction there are no contradictions.

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?

[replying to Brant]

In fact there is no truth.

But the words "in fact" you have used refer to just that: the existence of a truth.

Truth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with fact or reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

[9thdoctor]

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.

MSK: IMO this is cause enough to reduce potty-mouth's daily allotment to 4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG4s-EX4wLw

[caroljane]

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.

MSK: IMO this is cause enough to reduce potty-mouth's daily allotment to 4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UG4s-EX4wLw

Adolescence and senescence have their intersections.

Ninth, it is not much use trying to make seymour laugh unless something is being blown up or destroyed, like the world. To which end I have a favour to ask you. A recent bout of predictions here that war will start next fall and global economic chaos will end civilization in our lifetimes, gave me a mighty yearning to revisit the Beyond the Fringe classic, "The End of the World." I have only heard it on records (yes, actual vinyl things.) Do you have any video on it? I'll wait patiently for 24 hours by my Ingersoll watch.

[9thdoctor]

Beyond the Fringe classic, "The End of the World." I have only heard it on records (yes, actual vinyl things.) Do you have any video on it? I'll wait patiently for 24 hours by my Ingersoll watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSZ2by7M9NI

Here's a YouTube search so you can find more goodies.

http://www.youtube.c...l1912l2-5.2l7l0

[caroljane]

Beyond the Fringe classic, "The End of the World." I have only heard it on records (yes, actual vinyl things.) Do you have any video on it? I'll wait patiently for 24 hours by my Ingersoll watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSZ2by7M9NI

Here's a YouTube search so you can find more goodies.

http://www.youtube.c...l1912l2-5.2l7l0

Beyond the Fringe classic, "The End of the World." I have only heard it on records (yes, actual vinyl things.) Do you have any video on it? I'll wait patiently for 24 hours by my Ingersoll watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSZ2by7M9NI

Here's a YouTube search so you can find more goodies.

http://www.youtube.c...l1912l2-5.2l7l0

Beyond the Fringe classic, "The End of the World." I have only heard it on records (yes, actual vinyl things.) Do you have any video on it? I'll wait patiently for 24 hours by my Ingersoll watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSZ2by7M9NI

Here's a YouTube search so you can find more goodies.

http://www.youtube.c...l1912l2-5.2l7l0

Beyond the Fringe classic, "The End of the World." I have only heard it on records (yes, actual vinyl things.) Do you have any video on it? I'll wait patiently for 24 hours by my Ingersoll watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSZ2by7M9NI

Here's a YouTube search so you can find more goodies.

http://www.youtube.c...l1912l2-5.2l7l0

Oh, thank you! Even the whirly things stopped and I got to see it straight through. The philosophical credentials of BTF are simply impeccable - I never knew how to think until I heard the cataclysmic words, "Moore, do you have apples in that basket?"

Was "A Mighty Wind" the movie named in tribute?

[caroljane]

As the legal representatives of Medusa, we demand that you cease and desist harassing and slandering her with whack job designations, falsely associating her with a mortal of whom she has never heard, which have caused her dire harm and damage to reputation and loss of income.

My intent was not to say that Medusa herself was a whack job, merely to liken a certain confirmed whack job to her by reference to Medusa’s defining ability, her “super-power” if you will. I suppose GHS had better go into hiding, being now subject to pursuit by the various societies against defamation of nuts, crackpots, loons, cranks, cuckoos, ding-a-lings, screwballs, and dingbats. Nuts in particular, as nutritionists agree that they are a proper part of a healthy diet.

Ninth Doctor,

Your time is running out.

As the legal representatives of loons, peaceful lakedwellers and legal tender, beloved of countrymen and slot machines alike, we demand an enhanced apology. Be advised that we are in talks to represent nuts, dingbats and certain ding-a-lings, and the forces ranged against you, already insurmountable, are soon to become even more insurmountable.

MG Snowe LLB, QC

Snowe & Snowe

"When the allegations pile up, it's time for a Snowe job!"

- A. Selene, grateful client

[caroljane]

I'm trying to find time to start an interesting thread written off the top of my head, as opposed to research, on another subject.

--Brant

it's time, not mental

one reason I tend to one-liner posts

Try using the middle or bottom of your head, or if they don't work, just leave it out and write whatever comes on to your fingers. I have had to use this technique a lot since my head doesn't work weekends or holidays, and slacks off during the week too to be truthful.

[George H. Smith]

In fact there is no truth. Nice paradoxical statement eh.

Your statement is not paradoxical; it is self-contradictory and hence meaningless.

Should you ever advance beyond the freshman Philosophy 101 stage to the level of sophistication that we might find in a college sophomore, please let me know. I would be most interested in what Dominant Discourse you choose to adopt after abandoning the Dominant Discourse known as gibberish.

Ghs

[william.scherk]

Quoting Seymour: "And yes, he did like boys. Of consensual age. And I bet they just loved him back."

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?

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.

[caroljane]

Quoting Seymour: "And yes, he did like boys. Of consensual age. And I bet they just loved him back."

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?

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.

Not that I have anything against sleaze and rumour in general, as I am broadminded. but I have to second in this case. The casual linkage of homosexuality with pedophilia, and the apparent assumption that boy children would enjoy sex with adults more than girl children, or that homosexuals exhibit more pedophilia than heterosexuals (I think the reverse is true) is surprising to find here. And icky.

[Brant Gaede]

Quoting Seymour: "And yes, he did like boys. Of consensual age. And I bet they just loved him back."

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?

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.

Not that I have anything against sleaze and rumour in general, as I am broadminded. but I have to second in this case. The casual linkage of homosexuality with pedophilia, and the apparent assumption that boy children would enjoy sex with adults more than girl children, or that homosexuals exhibit more pedophilia than heterosexuals (I think the reverse is true) is surprising to find here. And icky.

To be specific I meant pederastry, not pedophilia. The two are commonly conflated. I didn't say pedophilia nor pederastry. Yes, I know of nothing regarding Foucault and pedophilia nor have ever heard of anything.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I never referenced a novel when I wrote "faux Roman." I had never even heard of it. I only vaguely remember writing it and can't recall the context.

--Brant

edit: WSS referenced "roman faux" on this thread on Feb. 12--I guess I never wrote it after all

Edited February 15, 2012 by Brant Gaede

[seymourblogger]

Quoting Seymour: "And yes, he did like boys. Of consensual age. And I bet they just loved him back."

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?

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.