Happy Birthday Robert Heinlein

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~ Not sure what you meant on that last post. Anyhoo, had been up and posting for a few hours and you caught me at my 'enough' time. I have weird hours due to life situation, so, I hope you didn't mean I 'consistently' leave discussions, which I see it may have seemed as.

~ Re 'consistency' and ARI: no thoughts therein whatsoever about what 'actually' happened. I'm aware of 3rd(+)-hand hearsay and rumors about their alleged 'persecution' or, at minimum, looking askance at those alleging 'The Affair', but, all I can say is, if such occurred as accurately as argued, they were ignoramuses who later 'saw the light'; elsewise, they've [ARI] been maligned. --- Even Einstein's search for 'consistency' made him inconsistent re his 'cosmological constant', so, inconsistency, per se, is not really something I've argued against.

~ What I've argued against is a defense/preference/acceptability/desire for INconsistency, as I've made clear that Emerson had done in his now-infamous quote, and that mental giants want little to do with.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Addendum, MIKE:

~ Where Emerson praised those you mentioned...was it because of their concern about how persistently 'consistent' (consistently persistent?) they were in their pathfindings? - Or was it merely how 'self-reliant' (with no mention of 'consistency' there, though obviously such would be needed) they were in accepting to not follow the common herd, but search for their own, personal, separate, paths in life?

LLAP

J:D

PS: My wife has a few not-praiseworthy things to say about Emerson and his 'reliance' on his widow's inheritance while writing, but, that's another story.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

Try good-natured quip. Friendly jab in the ribs. You know, good vibes.

Not everyone in Objectivism-land buys into mocking and humiliation and mean-spirited put-downs as the only form of humor.

Lighten up. I like you. From what I see, others around here do, too.

Michael

[John Dailey]

~ Getting back to this thread's ORIGINAL purpose, aka 'Heinlein', I've pointed out that I saw, starting with STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, RAH seeming to 'change' his...polemic priorities. And, he always was a polemic story writer, subtly originally, blatantly later.

~ Do most see a 'Heraclitean'...inconsistency here (regardless, or because of, his stroke)? Or, a 'developmental' change...consistent with his earlier 'libertarian' orientation?

~ I vote for the latter, though whether his stroke was relevent here or not, I cannot say.

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 14, 2007 by John Dailey

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

In reading Emerson and reading in general, I use the Principle of Charity. I never knew until recently that it was a formal rhetorical device. WSS was the one who called me on it once, so I looked it up. Life has generally been happier since—to a small degree but a real one.

Michael

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~ Thanx for the link re your subject; hats off to WSS re his pointing it out to you, as well.

~ I agree that it is a good framework to work from in reading others' thoughts, be they by Emerson, Einstein, Hitler, Kant, Pollock, Byron, Frost, Branden...or...even the likes of Rand herself (especially when she responds to a question about 'moral perfection' [ahem! ].) --- Then of course, there are blog-leaders and forum-posters to consider as well, no?

~ Thanx again for the link. Will read more on this, regardless that the likes of Quine has to complicate the subject with his ultra-analytic take on things; still, he always was worth reading as well (have to apply this framework to him, also, I guess.)

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 18, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~ You said that others around here...'like me'? Huh? :baby: *MOI*? :devil:

~ I don't know whether to do a Sally Fields :hug: ( :sick: ) or an Ebenezer Scrooge ( ) on that.

~ Hey, as I've said: "I got my :hyper: moments." B)

LLAP

J:D