Diana Mertz Hsieh Meets The Wall of Hypocrisy

[william.scherk]

I have been feeling ever more sorry for Diana Hsieh, at least in one aspect -- her career as small fish in a small and shrinking pond. Judging by the stale entries and absence of feedback at the former Noodlefood blog, she continues to lose both audience and relevance.

Not that she does not have anything to say.

Here is an excerpt from today at her "Let's All Eat Like Cavemen" blog. Now I have another reason to feel bad for her, the terrible effects of her adrenal syndrome. How very sad. Part of the reason for her dispirited lack of entries at Philosophy Inaction is illness. Life is a bitch, benevolent universes of cabbage and turnips notwithstanding.

My adrenal insufficiency is a huge problem for me right now, and even with adrenal supplements, an easy schedule, and good sleep, I'm feeling sleepy and lethargic most of the time. Travel exacerbates the problem like nothing else: I've still not dug myself out of the hole that I dug myself visiting family in late June.

So I fear that the AHS would not just be miserable and exhausting for me but also put me in a significant worse state. I hate to cancel, particularly at the last minute. I'm sorry that I'll be missing some sure-to-be-awesome lectures, as well as chatting with paleo folks. Nonetheless, it seems like the only sensible decision.

[Brant Gaede]

I used to read her. I'd go there once a week or so and burn through her stuff, but when she started writing about her podcasts I stopped. I don't listen to podcasts and I don't like the presumption of all the practical philosophical advice she dishes out. I'm someone she doesn't want in her Comments section so how do I suggest to her that her problem might be compounded by something else or put her in touch with someone who might know how to buck her up or that she might be doubly trapped in conventional medicine by being married to a radiologist? I don't dislike her to the extent I wouldn't push a button to make her feel and be better if I had such a button to push.

She has so marginalized herself she has little Promethean value for bringing Objectivism to ignorant mankind--assuming it's ready for prime time. It isn't. That part of the philosophy that is is the libertarian part, but the underdeveloped ethics make it like an airplane with fuel tanks only big enough to let it taxi around the airport. All it really needs is its basic ethical principle plus every extant ethical principle that doesn't contradict it, but it's not officially inclusive; it's exclusive and elitist.

--Brant

[caroljane]

I have been feeling ever more sorry for Diana Hsieh, at least in one aspect -- her career as small fish in a small and shrinking pond. Judging by the stale entries and absence of feedback at the former Noodlefood blog, she continues to lose both audience and relevance.

Not that she does not have anything to say.

Here is an excerpt from today at her "Let's All Eat Like Cavemen" blog. Now I have another reason to feel bad for her, the terrible effects of her adrenal syndrome. How very sad. Part of the reason for her dispirited lack of entries at Philosophy Inaction is illness. Life is a bitch, benevolent universes of cabbage and turnips notwithstanding.

My adrenal insufficiency is a huge problem for me right now, and even with adrenal supplements, an easy schedule, and good sleep, I'm feeling sleepy and lethargic most of the time. Travel exacerbates the problem like nothing else: I've still not dug myself out of the hole that I dug myself visiting family in late June.

So I fear that the AHS would not just be miserable and exhausting for me but also put me in a significant worse state. I hate to cancel, particularly at the last minute. I'm sorry that I'll be missing some sure-to-be-awesome lectures, as well as chatting with paleo folks. Nonetheless, it seems like the only sensible decision.

That poor girl is always sick. She is not much of an advertisement for Free Enterprise medicine.

Forget the adrenal supplements. What she needs is a good helping of Kraft Dinner.

[Selene]

I think she requires a regimen of protein injections.

[caroljane]

KD is full of protein. As the BNL classic says,

"If I had a million dollars

I wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner

But I would anyway"

[Brant Gaede]

I think she requires a regimen of protein injections.

On a paleo diet?

--Brant

or did you just comment on her diet?

[Selene]

I think she requires a regimen of protein injections.

On a paleo diet?

--Brant

or did you just comment on her diet?

Sure did, as well as her sexuality and sense of life - girl is way, way too tense, condescending and controlling.

[caroljane]

I think she requires a regimen of protein injections.

On a paleo diet?

--Brant

or did you just comment on her diet?

Sure did, as well as her sexuality and sense of life - girl is way, way too tense, condescending and controlling.

I think she requires a regimen of protein injections.

On a paleo diet?

--Brant

or did you just comment on her diet?

Sure did, as well as her sexuality and sense of life - girl is way, way too tense, condescending and controlling.

Just your type, eh Adam?

Honestly, you guys! It is a Monday morning for heavens sakes, this is a respectable forum.

[Brant Gaede]

Except for the Canadians, it would be a "respectable forum."

--Brant

bomb Canada!

[caroljane]

Except for the Canadians, it would be a "respectable forum."

--Brant

bomb Canada!

Laura Secord to you,

Laura Secord to you,

Happy 1812 bicentennial dear Branty

Laura Secord to you

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't doubt the seriousness of Hsieh's health problems, but I do give a lot of thought to how the mind influences illness.

I wonder if the disappointment from Hsieh's moth dilemma is contributing to her current trouble. (The moth dilemma is flying too close to a flame because you are compelled to do so by your nature and getting your wings burned so you can no longer fly.)

I have no doubt that, despite her public front of not caring about her rejection by the ortho nucleus, it cut deep into her soul.

btw - I don't find a painful reaction to be a weakness of character. This kind of weakness might be part of the story before being rejected, but being hurt by rejection is certainly no sin. It's perfectly human.

Regardless of the cause of trouble and aggravants to Hsieh's health, though, I hope she gets better.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Regardless of the cause of trouble and aggravants to Hsieh's health, though, I hope she gets better.

Michael

I wish Diana well, as you do. I still have hopes for her.

Ghs

[Xray]

I have been feeling ever more sorry for Diana Hsieh, at least in one aspect -- her career as small fish in a small and shrinking pond. Judging by the stale entries and absence of feedback at the former Noodlefood blog, she continues to lose both audience and relevance.

Not that she does not have anything to say.

Here is an excerpt from today at her "Let's All Eat Like Cavemen" blog. Now I have another reason to feel bad for her, the terrible effects of her adrenal syndrome. How very sad. Part of the reason for her dispirited lack of entries at Philosophy Inaction is illness. Life is a bitch, benevolent universes of cabbage and turnips notwithstanding.

My adrenal insufficiency is a huge problem for me right now, and even with adrenal supplements, an easy schedule, and good sleep, I'm feeling sleepy and lethargic most of the time. Travel exacerbates the problem like nothing else: I've still not dug myself out of the hole that I dug myself visiting family in late June.

So I fear that the AHS would not just be miserable and exhausting for me but also put me in a significant worse state. I hate to cancel, particularly at the last minute. I'm sorry that I'll be missing some sure-to-be-awesome lectures, as well as chatting with paleo folks. Nonetheless, it seems like the only sensible decision.

That meat-based 'paleo diet' of hers - could it have contributed to the adrenal problem? Too much uric acid maybe?

[Dan Haggerty]

I think she requires a regimen of protein injections.

On a paleo diet?

--Brant

or did you just comment on her diet?

Sure did, as well as her sexuality and sense of life - girl is way, way too tense, condescending and controlling.

For some strange reason I read this and thought of Dee Snider before congress. He told Al Gore that the song "Under the Blade" was written about the fear a band member experienced when he had surgery, so that is what Dee sees when he reads the lyrics. Since Gore's wife Tipper went looking for S&M she naturally found S&M. Evidently Gore about came out of his seat.

Strange thoughts as one begins the day with the first cup of coffee.

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

I wish Diana well, as you do. I still have hopes for her.

end quote

I am dismayed by her and miffed by the fact that I wrote her and she never responded. As Laurens Van der Post said, “Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right.”

Still, I do wish her well too.

Time for one more quote? I paid to watch a video of Diana’s and I sent her a few more bucks about a year ago as a down payment on our mutual tolerance if not our mutual admiration. So, as Unknown Author wrote, “If you lend someone $20, and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.” Ciao bella, Diana.

Now, I might change my mind if she would just write a book of interest to me like George did . . .

Peter

[PDS]

Ghs wrote:

I wish Diana well, as you do. I still have hopes for her.

end quote

I am dismayed by her and miffed by the fact that I wrote her and she never responded. As Laurens Van der Post said, “Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right.”

Still, I do wish her well too.

Time for one more quote? I paid to watch a video of Diana’s and I sent her a few more bucks about a year ago as a down payment on our mutual tolerance if not our mutual admiration. So, as Unknown Author wrote, “If you lend someone $20, and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.” Ciao bella, Diana.

Now, I might change my mind if she would just write a book of interest to me like George did . . .

Peter

Peter, as somebody who has Van der Post's biography of Jung on my bedstand, I would caution you to take his claims (even moral claims) with a grain of salt: he has been called "a fraud, a fantasist, a liar, a serial adulterer and a paternalist," and that was before his accusor even got warmed up.

He also claimed, if memory serves, to see Jung, on the day of his death, flying around through the air from his (Van der Post's) cruise ship.

With that said, I have never understood the sentiment behind the quote attributed to him above. The Founding Fathers were surely convinced beyond any doubt of the rightness of their cause, as they were willing to give their lives, fortunes, and most important, "sacred honor" to declare independence. That turned out pretty well, did it not? I am rather glad that they didn't believe, with Aristotle, in the non-sequitor of "all things in moderation," which is actually the point Van der Post is trying to make.

I like the way Ghs said it one time: "all things in moderation, including moderation."

[blackhorse]

Is Diana running OO.net?- more app called ObjectivismOffline?

[caroljane]

Is Diana running OO.net?- more app called ObjectivismOffline?

I thought the moderators ran it.

[william.scherk]

I'll move my comment over to the thread about consciousness, since I find I have nothing fresh to say about Dr Hsieh. I hope she is okay, but we don't hear much from her these days. The wall of hypocrisy is keeping her near-mute, maybe, circumscribed her ability to dominate. I tend to think of her as an intellectual invalid now. I expect no books, no articles in journals, nothing but feedback cult radio forever.

Edited October 4, 2012 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

Rand was not wrong about emotions, but she was wrong about the scope. What I mean is that what she got right, she got right, but you have to restrict the application of her observations for them to remain valid.

There are some emotions and some circumstances where emotions operate like she claimed, but nowhere near all.

If you remove scope, you will see she had some useful and clever insights about emotions. It you try to use her theory of emotions as universal, it fails on many fronts.

Here is just a common-sense one. Can a newborn feel emotions? Have you ever seen a newborn cry with rage? It certainly has no cognition to speak of for such a powerful emotion to be based on.

William is correct to reference Damasio (and a slew of other neuroscientists and psychologists, I might add).

I can point you to a lot of literature that deals with measurable and repeatable results, that can give you some great information on the how and why of emotions, and it is not all geek-speak. Best of all, if you remove scope, this knowledge can be integrated with Objectivist ideas.

Michael

[anthony]

Michael,

Understood, fair comment.

In the business of emotions, I'd rather my reach exceeded my grasp - and I'm certain

it was so with AR.

With the raging baby, it's easy - isn't he recalling that cozy warm place he was

evicted from? (Hah). I can't blame him sometimes.

I'm sure I haven't said emotions are the result of cognition alone (have I?), and don't

believe Rand did either. (Did she?) That must be wrong.

Those pesky emotions come from 'something' or 'somewhere' - if only an ancient memory.

Detective-like, we can track them down.

(MSK: btw, how did this come up here? can it be moved to the other thread?)

[william.scherk]

I am about to fork up Diana Hsieh's promised reaction to the Peikoff post-electoral apocalypse podcast. I imagine she has cut her lifeboats from the mother ship entirely, but we'll see.

Her blog is still active, barely, but she has lost her commentariat. In the last week she has been on her usual extended murk about the Modern Paleo diet. Follows a couple of samples:

When I developed my list of Modern Paleo Principles in early 2010, I’d hoped to be able to sort out the essential principles from the optional tweaks. So forgoing grains would be essential to eating paleo whereas intermittent fasting would be just an optional tweak that a person might never even try. Sounds reasonable, right? Perhaps so, but the attempt was a total non-starter.

Almost as soon as I sat down to write out my list of principles, I realized that I couldn’t possibly separate them into “essential” and “optional,” except in a few clear cases. Similarly, I couldn’t rank its principles by priority except in a very rough way.

It goes on ...

Here's her plain-thinking on the Obama Apocalyse:

A notable Objectivist intellectual said the following about the election: “Tragically, the election revealed that we are no longer America. … The American sense of life does still exist, but it no longer is the majority attitude. The sense of life that used to be very widespread dwells now in only about half of us.”

That is, to put it gently, a gigantic non sequitur. It assumes that every Obama voter lacks an American sense of life, while every Romney voter has an American sense of life. That’s a ridiculous claim on its face. It also ignores the millions of Americans who didn’t vote for either Romney or Obama for president.

It’s not even plausible as a general claim, true of “most people.” Anyone who has ever lived in a very red state knows just how frighteningly theocratic most Republican residents and politicians are. Heck, even in the very purple Colorado, many GOP candidates are determined to govern based on their notion of biblical principles. That’s a large part of why Democrats won Colorado, yet again.

Are we supposed to consider the people who voted for Romney because they abhor gays, decry abortion as murder, demand that the borders be closed, and want creationism taught in schools as having “an American sense of life”?

And, best for last, a selection from her just-published reaction to Peikoff's election post-mortem, "Leonard Peikoff on the “Catastrophe” of the 2012 Election."

You know where these opinions live, no link necessary ....

Last week, I listened to Leonard Peikoff’s podcast question on the election results. Given my strong disagreements with his October statement on the election, I wasn’t too surprised to find that I disagreed with much that he said. However, I didn’t expect to disagree with almost his whole analysis.

Here, I want to focus on two points: (1) the reasons why people voted for Obama over Romney and (2) the “catastrophe” of these election results. However, before reading my comments below, please listen to Dr. Peikoff’s statement for yourself. It’s less than five minutes long.

First: The Voters

Peikoff claims that the election shows that the some American sense of life is left, but less than he thought earlier. He claims that Obama effectively bought off the country, and that something like 47% or 50% of people are only concerned with handouts from the federal government. He claims that immigrants are coming to America en masse for the sake of the welfare state, lacking any American sense of life.

Such claims cannot be substantiated. The election concerned a wide range of topics, and people voted for one candidate over the other for a wide range of reasons. Yes, some Obama voters wanted their government handouts, but I know many people who voted for him for other, better reasons. Similarly, some Romney voters wanted to impose a social conservative agenda, but I know many people who voted for him for other, better reasons. Also, we should remember that most people just barely care about politics. As a result, they’re remarkably ignorant about even the basics of political events and elections.

[caroljane]

I am about to fork up Diana Hsieh's promised reaction to the Peikoff post-electoral apocalypse podcast. I imagine she has cut her lifeboats from the mother ship entirely, but we'll see.

Diana, honey, I know it's none of my business, and I know you wrote that hubby didn't want kids, but it seems to me that the best thing you could do now is replenish that good old American Sense of Life in your own way. You could still keep up your little hobbies.

[PDS]

I am about to fork up Diana Hsieh's promised reaction to the Peikoff post-electoral apocalypse podcast. I imagine she has cut her lifeboats from the mother ship entirely, but we'll see.

Her blog is still active, barely, but she has lost her commentariat. In the last week she has been on her usual extended murk about the Modern Paleo diet. Follows a couple of samples:

When I developed my list of Modern Paleo Principles in early 2010, I’d hoped to be able to sort out the essential principles from the optional tweaks. So forgoing grains would be essential to eating paleo whereas intermittent fasting would be just an optional tweak that a person might never even try. Sounds reasonable, right? Perhaps so, but the attempt was a total non-starter.

Almost as soon as I sat down to write out my list of principles, I realized that I couldn’t possibly separate them into “essential” and “optional,” except in a few clear cases. Similarly, I couldn’t rank its principles by priority except in a very rough way.

It goes on ...

Here's her plain-thinking on the Obama Apocalyse:

A notable Objectivist intellectual said the following about the election: “Tragically, the election revealed that we are no longer America. … The American sense of life does still exist, but it no longer is the majority attitude. The sense of life that used to be very widespread dwells now in only about half of us.”

That is, to put it gently, a gigantic non sequitur. It assumes that every Obama voter lacks an American sense of life, while every Romney voter has an American sense of life. That’s a ridiculous claim on its face. It also ignores the millions of Americans who didn’t vote for either Romney or Obama for president.

It’s not even plausible as a general claim, true of “most people.” Anyone who has ever lived in a very red state knows just how frighteningly theocratic most Republican residents and politicians are. Heck, even in the very purple Colorado, many GOP candidates are determined to govern based on their notion of biblical principles. That’s a large part of why Democrats won Colorado, yet again.

Are we supposed to consider the people who voted for Romney because they abhor gays, decry abortion as murder, demand that the borders be closed, and want creationism taught in schools as having “an American sense of life”?

And, best for last, a selection from her just-published reaction to Peikoff's election post-mortem, "Leonard Peikoff on the “Catastrophe” of the 2012 Election."

You know where these opinions live, no link necessary ....

Last week, I listened to Leonard Peikoff’s podcast question on the election results. Given my strong disagreements with his October statement on the election, I wasn’t too surprised to find that I disagreed with much that he said. However, I didn’t expect to disagree with almost his whole analysis.

Here, I want to focus on two points: (1) the reasons why people voted for Obama over Romney and (2) the “catastrophe” of these election results. However, before reading my comments below, please listen to Dr. Peikoff’s statement for yourself. It’s less than five minutes long.

First: The Voters

Peikoff claims that the election shows that the some American sense of life is left, but less than he thought earlier. He claims that Obama effectively bought off the country, and that something like 47% or 50% of people are only concerned with handouts from the federal government. He claims that immigrants are coming to America en masse for the sake of the welfare state, lacking any American sense of life.

Such claims cannot be substantiated. The election concerned a wide range of topics, and people voted for one candidate over the other for a wide range of reasons. Yes, some Obama voters wanted their government handouts, but I know many people who voted for him for other, better reasons. Similarly, some Romney voters wanted to impose a social conservative agenda, but I know many people who voted for him for other, better reasons. Also, we should remember that most people just barely care about politics. As a result, they’re remarkably ignorant about even the basics of political events and elections.

So, are hash browns still immoral, or not?

[william.scherk]

So, are hash browns still immoral, or not?

Honestly, I don't have a clue. The entire industry of Modern Paleo is riddled with hooey. It is as dire as any Magic Perfect Diet peddled anywhere. As Diana (wrongly) points out, nutrition sciences are in their infancy. While this child-science soils its pants and wobbles on its pins (according to Diana), the newborn Paleo congregation get to construct an entirely fresh Cult of Food Fancies ... outside the purview of what is actually known. I find it sad that she is struggling to make a body of law, the Rules of the Gut, on such specious flummery.

One potato, two potato, three potato, four ...