william.scherk

Ahem, lest we forget: http://www.theatlasp...g-community.php Hmmm. I did not describe what I meant by published, so certainly I will accept an op-ed at the Atlasphere. It was a not bad article (for those who do not care to read it, the link leads to an article "Using the Atlas movie to meet people.")** Moreover, since Atlasphere has a reputation as a place to find properly Objectivish people to take to bed or the altar or to a rapt group listen to old Peikoff LPs, I think it is safe to assume that Phil has followed his own advice and opened up a new chapter in his personal relationships. It can't be easy to find Objectivish friends in the Tampa area, I suppose. Mind you, there are (I looked) a number of Objectivish groupings in the metropolitan area. It would sure be interesting, psychologically, to discover if Phil had any success implementing his Meet People strategy ... Phil, can you up the tone of this whole sprawling mess? Could you open a separate thread relating the thrills and spills you have had socially in the Tampa area since your column at the Atlasphere? That was in April 2011. It is now 2012. Surely you can report on the success of your Plan. It must have paid huge dividends, given that you The Teacher almost guarantee that if the fucking degenerates here would follow the Lesson Plan, they too could be as happy, accomplished and sexually/socially/emotionally satisfied as you are. So, did you at least get laid, or what? ____________ ** in fairness to Phil/Mrs Grundy, I have missed several items of published output. I offer my sincere apologies to Phil and Ninth for the error. Here is what the Author Note at Atlasphere had to say about Phil on that same page cited above (emphasis added): Philip Coates is an educator who currently teaches history, literature, and thinking skills at the Challenger School, and in the past has been an instructor at the New School for Social Research and a departmental guest lecturer at UCLA. His articles have appeared in professional and academic journals and magazines, including The Independent Review, Reality, Objectivity, and the Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery. Also, he has been editor and publisher of Classics Review, a book review newsletter on timeless and classic books.

Here is Newt pandering to the worst stereotypes of terror. He is/was apparently some kind of historian, and some kind of professor. I expect better from my milkman. This is from Here are the positions of the Government of Israel, as noted by the Guardian writer Phoebe Greenwood in Ramallah (my emphasis added):

Me, I cannot get past Newt's heartless and deeply stupid comments on Palestinians. This is commentary on remarks made at the Florida GOP debate by Romney and Gingrich. I cannot fully express my contempt for Romney and Gingrich's remarks on this subject. They are equally vile, to my mind. Here is a version of the remarks from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Prediction: no matter which corrupt plutocrat or religious zealot the GOP selects as Presidential candidate, the GOP will be defeated. Obama will be inaugurated for a second term.

Why -- it occurs to me -- why should anyone accept Mrs Grundy's position as self-appointed arbiter? What has Grundy done in her own name in the wide field of Objectivish things? Let me ask Phil: Phil, my friend, what gives you the right to perch ABOVE all other folks on this list (especially when you have done fuck all in the following areas)? Published an article (no) Established your own blog or website (no) Written a book (no) Established a reputation as a fair-minded analyst (nope) Collaborated with another Objectivish person in present-day project (no) Accepted critical corrections to style and focus of your own comments (rare to vanishing) Explained why you returned to posting on a site (OL) that you have previously denounced (nope, never) See where I am going with this, Phil? Here is my summary judgement: you will NEVER get satisfaction from your teaching efforts here, because no one wants you to be their teacher. You have thus far destroyed your own influence and ability to inform and persuade. What have you done, my friend, to allow you to dominate and direct discussion? If you could entertain this question, and understand the implications, you might break free of behaviour that only damages and subverts your own stated interests and goals. This is for me the horrible centre of your frustration with Others. This is why you give Lesson Plans to others, and not to yourself. You seem immune to the self-same lessons you demand Others apply. This, and this alone, prevents you from realizing your goals. You might surprise me (and others) by answering any one or two of my numbered notes above. I suspect you will not -- because it seems to me that you are locked-in to habitual reactions, utterly unable to confront your own errors and misapprehensions. In ordinary terms this is hypocrisy. In your case it is so deeply embedded in your behaviour that you cannot see it. My heart aches for you, Phil, it really does. You damage yourself ... I say again that I feel sorrow for you, for your self-blindedness. It is (within the parameters of your own life and love and satisfaction) your tragedy. It is awful. It is instructive. It is deeply saddening. It is so ingrained, so central to your self-concept, so self-destructive that it seems it will never end until you die ... this brings me to the point of tears for you, Phil, it really does. I worry for you, I wish you only the best and only for personal happiness in your life. That you will trundle to the grave without self-correction strikes me deeply. It makes me very depressed at myself, my futility, my failure to help. It hurts, Phil. You hurt yourself, and I feel it. Why can't you accept reality, Phil, and learn from it? You will not get the respect you crave by continuing your self-destructive path of Schoolmarmery.

What a funny thread. As far as I understand things, Grundy has a few bitches. After peeking in at the grumbly old thing I seem to have cornered the issues at question. The bitching and complaining is centred on several notions: Adam's post of the Australia Day Giliard-bundling incident was unwelcome at OL Adam posts too much 'political trivia' Adam's posts go against the ethos of OL All disagreements with Grundy are WRONG Adam needs to listen to and obey Grundy from this point on Grundy's criticisms need airing Grundy has highlighted an important issue Grundy says that her POV trumps all other POVs. ALL of them. Grundy ... Grundy Now, here I am simply going to re-iterate Grundy's points as I see them. But first, some details of Grundy and The Man (the Man is MSK). MSK built and maintained "Objectivist Living" in an effort to put up the kind of Objectivish-oriented web forum that he wanted to see created. He ( and Kat, of course) built his own web forum. MSK invited contributors. MSK established (with consultations) a 'filing system.' MSK ran the site with the lightest possible hand on the official tiller, the official Red Button. Compared to other Objectivish web forums, this one, OL, is the free-est. Only one (?) account has ever been banned. MSK welcomes Grundy (in her alter ego Phil Coates) to participate at OL in any way Grundy sees fit. Grundy has (best evidence shows) done NOTHING to establish her own web forum. Grundy has rejected MSK's open offer for a Corner Of Further Insight on OL. Grundy is BANNED from every other major Objectivish Forum. BANNED from everywhere but OL. So, to my eyes, Grundy is a parasite (in the same way I, WSS, am a parasite) on MSK's efforts. Grundy has attached herself to OL and considers herself a sage elder -- whereas the opinion of the rest of OL's readers and contributors seems to be overwhelmingly against Grundy's self-appointment as Overseer, Corrector and Conscience. Grundy, sadly, stupidly, incessantly and self-thwartingly, attempts to speak with authority, as a Teacher, on Objectivist Living. This stance of Teacher is rejected across the board, not by folks who hate/dislike/reject Grundy utterly. Grundy's self-regard does not match the opinion of other participants. Grundy has ZERO support for her lecturing behaviour (though her points may indeed have value, the points are marred by presentation). Grundy sweeps all objections to her dictates off the table without discussion. Grundy sweeps away Carole's objections and rejoinders (I should mention that Carole herself is a known altruist, a card-carrying Canadian. She posts on subjects such as Canadian politics (trivia?), the great game of Hockey, and other subjects that do not seem to attract the knuckle-rapping attention of Grundy. I re-stress one point here at the hinge of my argument. Grundy is completely and utterly convinced of her righteousness and rectitude. ALL other points raised in opposition to her posturing are wrong. OK, now back to the present situation. Grundy again raises her points on the Gilliard security incident. The points are: the Gilliard security incident is trivial, of no proper interest to anyone on the OL forum the Gilliard security incident rightly ought to have been ignored by Adam (Adam should NOT have posted it). the Gilliard security incident is not interesting or important the Gilliard security incident is not interesting or important in Australia the Gilliard security incident is not interesting or important in the Commonwealth the Gilliard security incident is not interesting or important to Australians on Objectivist Living Carole is wrong, completely and utterly Brant is wrong, completely and utterly MSK is wrong, completely and utterly MSK runs his web forum incorrectly WSS is wrong, utterly and completely Ninth is wrong Ellen is wrong Criticisms of Grundy dating back to 1999 are wrong Adam posts too much Brant posts too much MSK has set up everything wrong, and continues to do everything wrong, and Objectivism is Degenerate All media is Trash Journalism (according to Grundy) All media reports on the Gilliard security incident are trashy and yellow and awful and boring and trivial and blah blah Everything anyone has written on this thread in re Giliard is WRONG Every point raised in defence of the value of reporting on the Gilliard security incident is WRONG All mention of the Gilliard security incident is Against Grundy Rules Everyone is wrong but Grundy No one will acknowledge that Grundy is right, one hundred percent right Grundy understands all the arguments and points raised in good faith against her Lesson Plan Grundy understands that all these arguments are WRONG, completely and utterly WRONG No one, not one single person on OL, understands Grundy's point Grundy will reiterate her point until everyone agrees that she is 100% correct. This is not exhaustive. There are some things wrong that Grundy has yet to expose, and subtle variations of You Are All Wrong that I have not teased out. In the end, what do we have? In my opinion we have a perfect example of self-thwarting online behaviour, an example of cognitive rigidity and amour-propre. Grundy, bless her sweet soul, really wants to be acknowledged as the unquestioned Authority. She feels, I suspect, that this is her due. Now, to my eyes, Brant said it most clearly: DO NOT TEACH ON ME. And this sheds light on the implacable nature of the conflict between Grundy and others here. Grundy believes that she has the right and the authority to teach up a storm whenever and wherever she wants, on any subject. Various list members reject this stance. Finally, I notice that Grundy goes against her own precepts in this thread. Disdaining distortion, she distorts other folks' arguments. Against intellectual evasion, Grundy evades any pointed questions to her. By her own rigid rules, she has simly motored through the crowd of sincere, considered, thoughtful and impassioned responses. Think about that for a minute. Think about the towering disdain and contempt Grundy feels for you and your opinions on the Gilliard affair (the ostensible topic here). Think about that contempt in its raw form, its self-blindedness, its hypocrisy and its self-destructive nature. I shall add a few topic scrawls to Grundy's enormous blackboard, and append to this message later today. In the meantime, the most revealing of Grundy's words in this thread, unalloyed. It's depressing when a supposed site for intellectuals, for the cultured, for those who supposedly have some interest in ideas, the arts, literature, etc. make the same mistake of "politicization" of their interests that the media is leading them by the nose toward. on the old OWL or Atlantis lists there were always multiple threads going on technicla issues in philosophy - free will and determinism, etc. My complaint then was the out of balance in the other direction. the -content- of some of those threads can often tend to be numbingly boring and repetitious thread about the Australian P.M. losing her shoe is even less relevant Because brouhaha and embarrassment in Australia is directly relevant to American national interests (sarcasm). Why not start a thread on when a Burmese general fell down the steps of his airplane ladder? Don't knock contemporary yellow journalism. I'm ready to start an entire thread just to post a video I have of the leader of South Korea picking his nose. you and your "snark pack" brothers need to learn to accept when someone 'teaches at you'** with important lessons about character, conduct, reading skills, thinking and fallacies. My purpose in the second part of the post was to teach like a schoolmarm, to instruct or explain to the recalcitrant. Sometimes with the obstinate you have to use "Scherckian" over-the-top language. to get people to see that how they are behaving like people they would not admire. The comments I get are that I'm making intellectual mincemeat out of you guys. calling someone a "schoolmarm" for offering criticism or suggestions for change or improvement is the kind of clownlike name-calling that an eight year old would do.

We must count our blessings, such as they are. Here is a couple of videos of thrilling full-contact legislating, the first from world-champion Taiwan, the next a 'best of legislative brawls and fisticuffs of power' from around the world. I especially like the Alabama Senate right hook.

Adam, you are welcome. We have to look out for each other with Mrs Grundy prowling the streets at night looking for offenders. I actually, for a moment, forgot what thread I was in. My latest entry ties together the themes in one prickly package. Just for you, Adam, the connoisseur of political brawling. Maybe I can find some South Korean or Taiwanese legislature brawls. Politicians shoving each other around and whacking each other to capture the Speaker's Dais, it is almost a dance form. Jordanian TV Debate on the Syrian Crisis Degenerates into a Brawl The Internet, JoSat TV (Jordan) - November 29, 2011 - 05:10 embed courtesy of MEMRI-TV In this one, we have some preliminary ranting from the crazy provocateur on the phone calling in, followed by a roaring rant from the rather large man on the right, then the skinny white haired man on the left alludes to the father of the big fellow. He mentions 'a certain sheik' who died in Palestine (West Bank of the Jordan river) and mentions that the Israeli defence forces opened the border for Jordanians to cross without permit. This further implies collusion with the IDF and Israel, thus a grave charge of Your Nutcase Father Slept With The Enemy. Then Big Boy gets to ranting that his father died in Amman (true) and that white-haired guy is a liar (true) and that white haired guy is a scumbag (true). And then they get up and go at it. The modern history of Jordan in 300 seconds. <iframe src="http://www.memritv.org/embedded_player/index.php?clip_id=3223" width="604" height="356" frameborder="0"></iframe> Oh, and this is what is playing in the Doghouse ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE

In favour once more of Adam fetching this particular story up for inspection, I want to point out again what a large-ish story this was internationally (and how important a story it is in Australia). The actors in the drama (Tent city, Aboriginals, the PM, the Opposition leader, the fraught drama of protest politics) are present in one way or another in other English speaking countries and other democracies. Here is a bit of a follow-up story from an Oz media source: Read more: http://www.brisbanet...l#ixzz1kd2qw7Bz

Can your fave do that indeed. I feel like I have had a high-colonic after listening to Joan, after screaming in laughter. Thanks you guys. Now that I think about it, there is nothing scary about Bulent Ersoy's voice. Turkish classical singing seems all warble and moaning and screaming and clashing symbols and sobbing clarinets, but have a listen to this (do NOT look at it, you will be blinded): It seemed so freakish to me at first, but then I realized that the audience is Eating It Up. They love it. Listen to her at 3.33. She howls insanely for a good twenty seconds and the audience eats it with relish. And this is not pop music. This is 16th century torture/love song. I guess what I could be saying is, "You think North American culture has degenerated? Get a load of this!" Oh, and this is the biggest Diva in the country run by the Islamist Menace Party that has its sights on Egypt, as I alluded to with the MB-GOP Wall Street Journal story elsewhere ... So, I will add an additional fuck you Richard to the doghouse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk44Qx93OWQ&t=3m33s

Okay, I will slowly de-escalate. If I must stay the giant bazooka that is Bulent Ersoy, then I will post Zeki Muren. Lovely, timeless voice, dull and plodding Turkish classical accompaniment, gently highlighted by Mr Muren's slow progression into full facial feminization. Beyond Liberace, yes, but not yet to Bulent Ersoy or Plan Nine. I withdraw my implicit threat of Total Classical Musical Video Warfare. And I bear in mind that many things have been and will be beloved, from Zeki Muren to Bulent Ersoy and Ginette Reno and well beyond, and whatever awful sentimental dreck is your own secret shame. I shall next find something tasteful and cleansing and pleasant, like Dame Kiri on the Muppets. Thank you for keeping the cap on the Big Guns. Those should be reserved for Objectivish Armageddon, I suppose.

This? You have seen the movie Dr Jeckyl and Mrs Grundy? Grundy is the character that roams London at night in heavy petticoats and tight corset, with a rule and a lesson plan, torturing and killing the wrongdoers while teaching them. I think it should be on Netflix. What, after I made it clear that I too, like our inmate on Devil's Island, love Ginette Reno and Fais-mois la tendresse? Well, the way I see it is, every national culture has its DIVA Deluxe and its Great Tenor, and in Quebec this is Ginette and whatsisname. And yes, everyone used the prestige of opera to blackmail such greats as Nagano to put themselves through the torture of conducting this national tearjerker deluxe. Of course, you understand that she, like Peikoff, will die soon, and thousands upon thousands upon thousands will attend her obseques and mound roses upon her giant coffin, and that this maudlin song will be played forevermore in Quebec, an eternal classic of pure big quebecoise voice from another era. Just think if Ethel Merman could sing/had a beautiful instrument/if she had written number one hits over the span of forty years, if she was still alive at 132, still singing, now weighing in at 200 Kg, accompanied by the New York Philharfuckingmonic and invited guests, and got to warble out her most recent Number One Pop/Cross-over/Classical/Country smash hit. We would all tear up. That is how dire it is, and why I caution you never to cross north of the 49th. It might kill you if you are not protected from the shock of people who are effortlessly crazier than the most crazed American. Now, if that is not horrifying enough, just tell me. And please pretend you share Phil and my love for the rapturous Ginette and Opera Guy howling each others' lungs out. Poised on the precipice of taste, indeed. I dare you to listen to the end. Double triple dare. Because, dear Ninth, Timelord, you know who Bulent Ersoy is ... and you do NOT want me to post a video of Turkey's greatest DIVA belting out Turkish classical laments. Not until the children are in bed, anyway. Some dumbass thinking that a frightening security breakdown for the Australian Prime Minister is not worthy of comment ...? This lardy dumbass should let himself off his chains and learn how to extract the pith from his environment, produce his own topical items, understand just what is fucking notable about Gilliard's shake-up. You are so myopic and BroomUpAss sometimes, Phil. You really are.

Kind of thinking I lost it. It could still be there, still on an expired website of mine, and maybe properly retired, since I am much more forgiving and respectful of Ellen Stuttle at the moment, even regretful. The image was a ventriloquist, a kind of woodcut image, with Linz as fingerer and, lawd help me, Ellen as the lapdancing Mr Hinge-mouth. Perhaps best forgotten by all. The other image I allude to may also be lost. This was of Linz in full-on Vicar of Dibley/Diddly drag, with black pageboy hair, enormous bosom, and instead of a big cross on said bosom, a shining silver LANZA!

Ninth Doctor that sly fellow of time travel and sonic thrust and power, well, he seems to be calling for a Palliative Ward for Objectivist Living comments. This is so thrillingly right. Someone stern and ipso facto committed to the Church of Reason, Home-schooled-by-self-and-Peikoff, yearning yearning yearning to do the job. A palliative indeed, the Phil Coates Terminal Ward, where all comments go for a little red-pencil and white-out and rambling corrections and chidings. I see this as a further extension of the Coates Empire Of Production Notes, which has now grown ever so big. Let's see. Six metric tons (tonnes) of notes in the garage. One book project horribly hobbled by Them. Another course outline suppressed by Bad Attitude. Reams and reams and reams of printouts from OWL list cul-de-sacs. A deeply churlish no-thanks-not-interested-enough-to-decline personal corner of insight, a no thanks you idiots OL blog, a no thanks fuck off online exposure to his Opus Mag. on Induction, a no thanks fuck off to publishing help, a no thanks fuck you to offers of assistance, a ban at Noodlefood, a ban at SOLOP, an inert account at RoR, and it sounds like a new fuck you in which Grundy is now witlessly insisting that her lesson plan shall be The Lesson Plan For All, and that her rulers are the rulers to smack pupils' knuckles and that is the way gawd planned it. Like a hideous and not-even-entertaining Lesson Plan Nine From Outer Space boxed-set DVD series all starring Mrs Grundy at the blackboard with her electric prods and her shackles and pincers and red pencils. The Ick Factor of the Objectivish. It's Back. It's BAAAAACK. And it has infested Phil, again, it seems. It may be terminal this time and indeed we may require a palliative. I suggest my painless option, a form of doghouse or Devil's Island. We will not euthanize. We will isolate and soothe. We pipe in Broadway show tunes, the early Streisand, and some mad Ginette Reno/Opera Guy howlers. It is not a bad doghouse, as these things go. [Edited to add lustre to the acid finish, and to add this coda. Long ago, on SOLOP, I wrote a savage post called Own Goal for the Vicar of Diddly. It was accompanied by a savage image. Jonathan contributed a savage image. The administrator, lord of SOLO, removed the thread. My biggest hit to his amour propre, evah! He just could not stand it. Ha and double ha. But here, during an earlier spasm of metaphor, an image from my Mexican Wrestling series, the hooded tormentors and heroes and villains and superstars. As I made clear at the time, not everyone is all bad. Some are like El Doctor Cerebro, below, kinda scary, but perhaps working for the good of Humankind. Hard to figure, but basically open to interpretation. Back then I had not hit upon the rich, endless seam of metaphor at the Schoolmarm Mine, opened I think by Jonathan and Ellen on a bare Kentucky hillside long ago). I use pictorials from Lucha Libre classic poster sites to illustrate my thesis that Objectivish devotees should don masks and make some money from their ritualized fantasies of personal destruction. So, to the Phil in the doghouse, I think of you as El Doctor Cerebro, the Masked Prober, as well as Grundy. Explained more fully at this hysterical reposting from SOLOP, "Que Wankero!" ]

Does it get any more religious than that? Great catch, Michael! Is she religious, no. But holy monkey shit does she apply herself religiously. And so her Do NOT Look Me In The Eyes is turned upon her and she is now on A List, and gawd forgive her for her sins because she is certainly cut from the same unforgiving crag as the List Pêople. They are doing the same schizzy thing that Evangelical and Brethren churchgoers do. They split, and mutually disdain, and pull their holiness ever closer. Michael resurrected the "Ick Factor." Yes, the True Brethren creepiness of it is awful, but it stands telling again and again -- she perfected the Modern Objectivish Dogpile on Sciabarra, so she can stew in tea she poured, the bitch.

Here is the kind of article that Richard Wiig could have an interesting time deconstructing . -- I haven't actually peeked into the ignore doghouse to see what Richard has been saying here. Should I? In other news, I announce that I like Loonwatch, a lot. The amount of slop and skid in those they watch (from the crazykookiepants Pam Geller to the kookooforkohkohpuffs commenters at Jihadwatch) is HUGE. I am so glad there is someone monitoring the crazy things that the kooks sometimes say ... That aside, I invite those who are kind of not looking at Egypt (let alone Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen or ugh Libya) for fear of finding out that everything you feared about the Islamist Boogeyman is true, give the article a read. It is meaningful in an Objective-ish way. It is not exactly reassuring, but IDs some actors and lets us better plot the future on our charts.

I vote with Carol. What makes me stumble over any firing squad or hangman or conscientious injector or electric chair or gas chamber or torture chamber or any power of the state to take a life is that there will be mistakes made. Mistakes will be made. In Canada, after we stopped the habit of the hangman (the only option up here), four major shocking cases of innocence played out in the media over the years. I won't name them, but these four would have long since been bones in a prison cemetery or crypt. Think of Damien Echols and the two other West Memphis Three. They were convicted fair and square, Adam. They satanically tortured and killed young boys, a savage, evil act. Whoever did that crime deserved to dangle, to have forfeited the right to live further (or that is what I say in my Death Penalty Nutcase voice), but they got the wrong guys. American justice can still go all snaky. We know this from Abu Graib to yesterday's news. It is pretty tough to know that you kill innocent people. It is something that made me loathe the Texas-style politics of pandering to death and horror through toughness and The Injection. and I just can't get over. Mistakes were made..

I am sure I would pay big money for NietzscheRand: the Opera if it came to town. Add in some Rand-esque marketing (HUGE billboards, Searchlights, Cigarettes, Hidden Valleys) and a whole lotta hype and gnashing of teeth. It could be just as good as Ginette Reno and the Opera guy howling at each other. Seriously, Atlas Superman as Opera Cycle, maybe? I always thought of Atlas Shrugged as a wonderful Science Fiction. I imagine the story arc of this cycle would be all monsters and flying and valhalla and resurrection. There should be a tempestous, screaming love between the resurrected Nietzsche and the resurrected Rand, set in Sci-fi NYC circa 1940/2050. Flying little planes looking for lost love. Hidden Valleys. Project X. Death rays. Love. Screaming matches. Cliffs, Tyrants, speeches. John Galt howling the Objectivist Libretto of the Speech over the entire half-day it will take to sing it. Throw in moderne Babylon costumes and sets, topless but veiled dancers, Iran and North Korea, and ....trains. Trains thundering to Nietzsche's sanitorium, trains thundering to Denver, trains thundering across China and Europe and even Mars. Nietzsche and Rand on Mars. Abbot and Costello meet Nietzsche and Rand. Cleopatra/Rand and Caesar/Nietzsche. Their secret love children. The holy grail. Jerusalem ... trains. Poor Rand -- the nod to Nietzsche will only increase over the years. But I am sure those years will be kind to Atlas Shrugged.

I wonder, Carol and Michael, if our differing (religious/non-religious) upbringings influenced the way we feel about or 'fall for' religion, how we three are naming and referencing. I do not and would not call Objective-ism a religion. Nor would I call it a cult. I think that religions are different in order from the objective-ish movement of any permutations. I take the behavioural view and that is perhaps a bit harder to explain. I see cult behaviour amongst Objectivists,, or rather -- cult-ish. I see also behaviours that strike me as sacralizing and Otherizing and otherwise 'religious' -- from enforcement to thought-control, shamings/shunnings. It just seems beyond question to me that there are strange and unecessary cult-ish behaviours in Objective-ism. That some folks approach Nietzsche, for example, with the same devotion and squabbling and torments as Objective-ish-isms, maybe that is true. In which case I would wonder at a cultic and or religious behavioural repertoire being performed on Nietzsche. There sure is a lot about organized religion that I like (strictly speaking the form, the art, the architecture, the intellectual history) while deploring its obvious downsides. So, here, please, I don't mean to tar wide, just tar accurately, without too much smearing and burning the wrong targets. Michael, you are right to gently prod me to not look down in guise of being entertained. Implicit, maybe, in my earlier remark was that there would be a third alternative for me beyond backing away slowly, or edging back and watching. That would be discussion and question and answer exchange with the speaker (granted I did not feel ranted at). I am a very kind man, but my kindness must also scream and howl in ridicule against that which I find fatuous or unjust, across the board -- and that is what I think people read me for. Not merely the twee and the nice, but also the harsh. So, if you are cautioning me to be careful, to be just, yes yes, yes, and thanks.

Here is the standard O'ist reply to this question -- a reply that has also been given by atheists since the 18th century, in response the the First Cause Argument for the existence of God: Why is there something rather than nothing? The why, in this context, asks for a causal explanation of existence, i.e.: What caused existence to exist? But a cause -- the what -- must first exist itself before it can cause anything. The question is therefore nonsensical. It commits what O'ists call "the fallacy of the stolen concept." In other words, the concept cause presupposes the concept existence, so to ask for a cause of existence is to put the cart before the horse. I would like to find that jerk or jerks who fucked me up but good at five, then, George, because I have been cursed by the vacuous and pretentious questions since. Seriously, let me take this slowly so that I understand the grave epistemological blunder I may have made at age five and which may have impeded my understanding since. Think of that five year old, George, and see if you can find the words to get him back on track with his inquiries.

I stepped in here only to deal with my own stepped-on toes, with regard to the vacuous and pretentious question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" sob sob. On another reading, I see it is Tim Maudlin who says this: This is a useful correction, in that Maudlin reminds us that Hawking does not likely read philosophy of physics (though we do not actually know) in depth or in review. If this is correct, that Hawking is ignorant of the philosophy of physics, and does not consult it, and is therefore misinformed regarding its pith and its power, great -- we should know this. But here again is the part I don't get: is this Maudlin just riffing off Hawking to promote his new department/science faculty (philosophy of cosmology)? Is he merely reacting to a world-famous quote taken from the Zeitgeist talk? Well, of course, one cannot answer that question till one listens to the talk. It is half an hour, but I have timed it to open at the moment Hawking bitches out philosophy. Now, me, I got that Hawking was giving a half-hour blurb for his new book, that the book should rightly be subject of Maudlin's remarks. So, Stephen takes issue with the blurbs, mainly, not necessarity Hawking and co-author: The Grand Design ... book [blurb] proposes “new answers to the ultimate questions of life: . . . Why is there something rather than nothing?” “The ‘top-down’ approach to cosmology that Hawking and Mlodinow describe would say that the fact that the past takes no definite form means that we create history by observing it . . .” “Along the way Hawking and Mlodinow question the conventional concept of reality, posing a ‘model-dependent’ theory of reality as the best we can hope to find”—with a little help from certain contemporary philosophers of science. Now, from this, I can only see that I must search for a review (by a competent philosopher of science) of The Grand Design, because I think we should confront Hawking in his lair if he is being a shit and churl and a shyster about The Philosophy Of Science. The cur. Here, again, I see I must do a buttload of homework. Is George bitching out Hawking, or Hawking's book? He may not have read it, so he may not be engaging with Maudlin's claim, or know which modern/contemporary philosophers Hawking cites or slags in the book. It sings and it sounds good, but I need examples to hang around my rube neck. This sings, but I don't see where it applies to Hawking yet. Hawking, if we follow Maudlin, is a dumb fuck about Philosophy of Science. Fair enough, and he at least quotes Hawking, not a blurb. I would like to see George and or everyone to tie their observations to some names or quotes or cites from the dude in the wheelchair. In the meantime, I have a creepy feeling that we have had at Hawking before on this forum. Into the labyrinth I go, hoping in my kooky Boydstun fan way that all is already answered here within.

It is a good test, though what it tests is unclear. For me, I fail to want to hit, spit or evulize all over him. But I do have my bitchy side, so if this was in real life, and this was a real conversation starter, I would probably murmur, move my eyebrows around and see if anything else was going to come out. I would give the other guy the opportunity to tell what he meant by "Ayn Rand's ideas" and if he could give examples. I would also kind of inwardly cringe at "totally." If I felt a crazy person rant coming, I would move away (many people would move away at the Ayn Rand mention). I feel in this thread the central oddity and distortion of treating Objectivism as a religion, or using it in the role of religion, or misusing its precepts in a religious manner, or behaving religiously. It comes from reification, to my mind. The thing, this object, this Objective-ism, this Essence is found somewhere in Ayn Rand (the writer) and it can be used to Bring Great Things To The World. It is an evangelism and cultism implicit to the same measure as it is fervently held religiously. That is my kind of groping explanation of how I react to that claim or that sort of claim, MSK. Generally, move away from the probably kooky, but remain close enough to be entertained, if likely. [Edit: changed an 'at' to 'as,' with remarkable results! ]

I am a rube. I read neither physics nor philosophy. But, "this pretentious, vacuous question"? This was the question that haunted me for a short time around age five and six. I could imagine nothing (or so I thought then -- I grappled since with limited imagination) and I could imagine the world around me, and I could imagine time, endless time and a beginning. My mind thought ot infinity and its boundary in visual terms as a vast expanding sphere, and its beginnning, before the expansion, I imagined ever smaller, smaller, smaller and so small that it almost wasn't there. Why is there something (this world) rather than nothing (not this world)? When did it begin? I was completely irreligious. At the time of the haunting, I had been taken to church and spoken at only once, at my own christening. No one in my family, in authority, had ever talked about gawds or god or God. It wasn't on the table. But, my question and subsequent questions were vacuous and pretentious?

I am glad I went searching, because however juicy an Ethel the Maneater story might be, it didn't ring true. It is a lovely double-barrelled family name, then, either adopted in adulthood or a brave family tradition? This would have made me, by Diana's delightufl nomenclature, Mr William Scherk Enwright (and had I married a Mr Chong, the choice of Mr William Scherk Chong or Mr William Scott Chong Enwright). I use my middle name generally for the same reason newspapers use the middle name when IDing famous criminals and assassins (James Earl Ray, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman): to distinguish myself from any name-cousins. I am not the only Bill Sh/Sch/er/ir/ck/k on earth, but I seem to be the only WSScherk at large on the internet. And my internet history goes back unbroken under that name since I strode onto Usenet an avenging fiend lo these many years ago. The weirdest post ever from Diana was during a fit of authoritarianism back around the Purge the Speicher episode. I can`t be bothered to look it up, but it came after she had denounced Betsy, banned her and slagged her, and told all Betsy list people to fuck off from Noodlefood and never talk to her at conferences. A reader asked in Noodlefood comments what she (the reader) might expect if she was an attendant at a conference on University grounds (or something collegial) and Diana said of course she would answer questions as required under a contract, but otherwise Fuck Off and Do Not Look In My Eyes or get near me or address me. I thought it was a freakish social moment -- when all her dunderheadedness combined into one peevish flipout, and I was again glad I lived north of the 49.

What, you mean the Internet doesn't give immortality? Hell and damnation, where did I file Mephistoheles's number?;;; Carol 106 is as far as I go Did you guys know that I volunteer with the demented elderly at a local care home? This brings me cheerfully to face the yawning gulf. In other news, the news that I am descended from farmers of the Fertile Crescent has had quite an effect on me on this my own Holiday Birth day, as you can imagine. I found the sauciest version of the news from the Daily Mail in the UK, though you may also find the originating study in PloS Biology.† I bet Ayn Rand would have had a lot to say about this most important period of human history! _______________ ** I am a nicely mutted European-derived Canuckistani, from the four quadrants Norway, Norway, England, Germany -- with admixtures from Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, France. In my mind's eye now, pictures of Grandma-Great Enwright with her snapping black eyes in command. My Near Eastern side. † "The transition from a hunter–gatherer existence to a sedentary farming-based lifestyle has had key consequences for human groups around the world and has profoundly shaped human societies. Originating in the Near East around 11,000 y ago, an agricultural lifestyle subsequently spread across Europe during the New Stone Age (Neolithic). Whether it was mediated by incoming farmers or driven by the transmission of innovative ideas and techniques remains a subject of continuing debate in archaeology, anthropology, and human population genetics. Ancient DNA from the earliest farmers can provide a direct view of the genetic diversity of these populations in the earliest Neolithic. Here, we compare Neolithic haplogroups and their diversity to a large database of extant European and Eurasian populations. We identified Neolithic haplotypes that left clear traces in modern populations, and the data suggest a route for the migrating farmers that extends from the Near East and Anatolia into Central Europe. When compared to indigenous hunter–gatherer populations, the unique and characteristic genetic signature of the early farmers suggests a significant demographic input from the Near East during the onset of farming in Europe."

Schweet, thanks, Adam!