caroljane

Nihilism is for pussies. I am a post-post-modernist Phenomenological Peripatetic, who suffers from bouts of pre-Sartrean existentialism on occasion. Ghs By their mark ye shall know them. It is the number of the beast, 666. --Brant "One sweetly solemn thought Comes to me o'er and o'er.." Hymn 666 (Phoebe Cary)

Not with the French intellegentsia. With some of them "apres moi la deluge" is a recurrent trope. Of course, avant l'apres is usually spent contemplating apres comfortably in Versailles, or California. Not their job to build arks.

delete, wrong thread

I am not a nihilist any more. I stated clearly when I first came on OL that I was a synaestho-fatalist. I used to be a synaeshtho-nihilist but all that destroying things was just too much work and I am not young anymore. I never saw the point anyway. Fatalism is much more comfortable and you get to keep your stuff more or less intact.

Let us remember what Burroughs said: Ghs How did one who had obviously not been devoured know that? Did he narrowly escape being devoured?Enquiring Edgar Rice fans want to know.From Foucault, The Order of Things, p. 307: Ah yes, when he said that, I remember well, only I and Cocteau were there with him - the dinner had finally arrived, no onions avec the steaks frites. Ghs

Let us remember what Burroughs said: Ghs How did one who had obviously not been devoured know that? Did he narrowly escape being devoured?Enquiring Edgar Rice fans want to know.

In your third post on SoloHQ you were already discussing postmodernism. --Brant I still don't understand it Naturellement Brent, you do not "understand." It is not about "understand" but about Know, which nobody can do except possibly me and a few brilliant americaines , and then it is to just know that you do not and cannot know, you can only contemplate the impossibility of knowing because knowing has died with the Dead Discourse, died with Ozymandias who never lived in any real sense and with Pattinson who is in the dialect of Variety "dead" in that he is the David Cassidy of yesterday/tomorrow. Or it could be you are too stupid to understand the understand of not Knowing or unwilling to be serious, I can instantly sense such types . Consider the onion, Vous connaissez l'oignon, oui? In the dead past it was cut up to prepare for a potage or perhaps a cassoulet such as I enjoyed with Sartre and de Beauvoir . They tried to persuade me of the terminality of their existentialism but I could see through them. One peels the onion, one layer after another, Then one may chop the onion. Peel, chop, - then voila! The onion is CUT, and then CUT and CUT and then chopped some more and then there is no onion, an ex-onion, a never-was-an-onion, and to "understand" this is the beginning of Knowing that there is no potage, no cassoulet, no McDonalds even or even the "idea" of a McDonalds. I have no more to say. If you wish to enter the current, or have some dim idea of why it is sweeping you away, you must first read all my works and those of Foucault, in the original of course (French is the only intellectual "language"), and immediately start an online scrapbook with many pictures of busty starlets. J. BaudrillardBaudrillard: You do not understand the onion because you do not understand its archeology. A system of elements -- a definition of the segments (layers, if you will) by which the resemblances and differences of onions can be shown, the types of variation by which those segments can be affected, and, lastly, the threshold above which there is a difference and below which there is a similitiude -- is indispensable for the establishment of even the simplest form of onion. This makes manifest the modes of being of onions, a positivity anterior to words, perceptions, and gestures; more solid, more archaic, always more "true" than the onion in its explict form. You are fool, Baudrillard. M. Foucault Cher maitre, with my deepest respect and honour, it is you who does not understand the onion, as I fully understand "achaeology" but do not "understand" it as there can be no understanding of a concept which old dead people "understood" in the way alive people old and young both perceive, and as to layers, with respect, Bah upon layers, their repetitive depths have been all peeled and as I pointed out in my latest essay in Cahiers du Cinema, in my review of Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3, chopped up beyond recognition. Badrillard

Adam, I know that the bird seems to have flown but maybe Janet is like Phil and 'returns'. My gut feeling did not betray me: the bird has returned. http://www.objectivi...ic=11664&st=160 (post # 162) I thought maybe they had eloped.

"I am sure I could be a good woman on five hundred a year." -Becky Sharp

Geez, a Maritimer offers a compliment on your goodwill and productivity and you taunt her with seafood, I want a lobster roll and I want it now. PDS did you notice that Gretzky and Coffey both sent congrats to Gagner for tying their second place records of 8 points a game> They are both such pure class. The record is held by a Maple Leaf, Darryl Sittler, who in 1976 scored ten points in one game. Sigh.

In your third post on SoloHQ you were already discussing postmodernism. --Brant I still don't understand it Naturellement Brent, you do not "understand." It is not about "understand" but about Know, which nobody can do except possibly me and a few brilliant americaines , and then it is to just know that you do not and cannot know, you can only contemplate the impossibility of knowing because knowing has died with the Dead Discourse, died with Ozymandias who never lived in any real sense and with Pattinson who is in the dialect of Variety "dead" in that he is the David Cassidy of yesterday/tomorrow. Or it could be you are too stupid to understand the understand of not Knowing or unwilling to be serious, I can instantly sense such types . Consider the onion, Vous connaissez l'oignon, oui? In the dead past it was cut up to prepare for a potage or perhaps a cassoulet such as I enjoyed with Sartre and de Beauvoir . They tried to persuade me of the terminality of their existentialism but I could see through them. One peels the onion, one layer after another, Then one may chop the onion. Peel, chop, - then voila! The onion is CUT, and then CUT and CUT and then chopped some more and then there is no onion, an ex-onion, a never-was-an-onion, and to "understand" this is the beginning of Knowing that there is no potage, no cassoulet, no McDonalds even or even the "idea" of a McDonalds. I have no more to say. If you wish to enter the current, or have some dim idea of why it is sweeping you away, you must first read all my works and those of Foucault, in the original of course (French is the only intellectual "language"), and immediately start an online scrapbook with many pictures of busty starlets. J. Baudrillard

Forbes the mag a list has given Sad and sordid , of the most Wretched urban sites to live in From the coast unto the coast. Lo, atop the list of hell in midst of Paradise, like Voight and Hoffman, longing for Miami, perch Miami, and Detroit! Places two OLers dwell in. We salute ye! Midst the crime, Corruption, and bad standings fearful, Ye stand steadfast, sane and cheerful, Inspiration to the tearful, Ever ready with an earful, Using usefully your time , And certain worthy of a rhyme, So here to offer oding, I'm.

Indeed, so I think the big question ought to be: on what date did she actually celebrate it? Does anyone know? The choices ought to be January 20 or February 2; either way her sign was Aquarius: http://en.wikipedia....rius_(astrology) You put a lot of energy into forming opinions and hold to them strongly. Driven by two planets, each representing opposite principles you frequently display a ‘wild’ side, linked to planet Uranus and prompting eccentric leanings, as well as a structured ambitious hard working Saturnian side. You are most happy when you are doing something different in a big ambitious way. You are the thinker of the zodiac, your key phrase: “I serve humanity”. Yeah. Uh-huh. Nailed it. Maybe someone can look up what her Chinese animal was. For example, this is the year of the Dragon, last year was year of the Rabbit. Obviously, it was the Groundhog.

If they can't find the perfect porcine princess, maybe they can persuade the divine Jennifer to double up on her roles.Can't wait to see her as Aunt anyway.

There is nothing "caustic" about your one-liners. They are on a par with So's your old man and Takes one to know one. If they showed a spark of intelligence or wit no one would object to them. You use juvenile one-liners for no purpose other than to avoid responding to criticisms. Ghs Caustic was not my adjective. Or if it was it was daunce who used it. Or dance, or whatever. That is an outright lie. You used it yourself, in post #207 above. I was quoting your own self-praise of your inane flailings as "caustic zaps", hence the quotation marks I used. It was a few days ago, perhaps you have forgotten.

Heh. You've got some things to learn about how OL works. You have no idea how I have handled the many trolls and crazies and bullies and preacher types, including a few nasty people purposely out to destroy this forum, who have appeared in the past. (And other problems, of course.) Yet look around. We have a pretty good thing going with a very high-quality audience. Before telling the owner why that is, I suggest you do some observing first. To put it politely, it ain't the way you speculate. I know what I'm doing. I learned it the hard way at the college of hard knocks, Screw U. That's why I'm glad you say you are opting for quality. (Let's see if you do what you say, but only time will tell.) And yes, that will save me a headache. But if not, no worries. I've dealt with people who have tried to hog the forum before so I assure you I can handle it without a whole bunch of "howling." Look at how you were received. I can almost guarantee that you have not had the treatment elsewhere that you have had so far here. There are reasons--and some of them are the reasons you want to post here. But I'm not going to teach them to you. All you have to do is observe and you will find them out for yourself. Carol, I've had to deal with several machine-gun posters in the past (including one serial plagiarist). They actually do make the audience leave. The first day or three there's a surge in interest since people like to gather to see the train wreck, but as the show gets monotonous, people move on. That's what the stats backstage have always told me (in addition to my own eyes, of course). Nowadays I try to nip things in the bud instead of waiting for the audience to leave. And it's always a treat when someone like that finally "gets" the spirit of the forum. (I'm thinking specifically about one who knows who she is and she ain't you or the current newcomer.) I keep an eye on these things because I like to make a comfortable, but challenging, environment for highly intelligent people to explore ideas--using our shared interest in Objectivism as a starting point, not an end. If you build it they will come. That's what's happened so far. Like I said above, I think we've got a pretty good thing going here. And there's something else. Over the years, I've noticed that many things posted here end up being raised and discussed at other intelligent places soon after. Come to think of it... Yo! You lurkers! Yo! Give yourself a hand! I mean it... You guys rock. Stupid people don't read OL too much. Intelligent people do. So guess what that makes you? Rock on... Michael Thanks Michael for explaining this. I am surprised that one-liners diminish audience, but I can see that dominant sniping by a very few would soon bore an interested reader. I have to say that it was in part the quality one-liners of regulars like Ghs. PDS, Brant and yes, you Adam, which lured me into joining OL. For which joining, I am STILL waiting for my T Shirt as thousandth member. I don't care what is printed on it, John Galt or the Blackhawks, size XXL please, I might invite a friend to join me in it, In the case of Seymour though I think you are wise to ask her to practise self-restraint in rejoinder. Her "caustic zaps" so far are just ill-tempered, mean-spirited, small-minded, childish reactions which zap no one but herself, not with caustic but with emollient, soothing her own feelings --which, I suppose, is the point, after all.

I’ll try and whip something up this weekend. Adam could help you out. He is currently searching the bondage places around Tampa Bay for a missing person and taking a hell of a long time about it.

OK - are you in possession of a news story that goes with the Gingrich Goons statement? Yahoo News, it was on the homepage. They only tromped on his feet.

Coincidence Phil, I just recommended Kaplan's Twain bio to you on Current Reading thread.

Gingrich goons tromp on sandal-shod Paulian!! Tsk, tsk.

After they have served their sentences, they will be deported to Afghanistan. Parole after 25 years is unlikely for the two men. There are still two Shafia daughters, a teenager and a tenyear-old.at this time. Who knows what they will get up to in 25 years. Their lives would be at risk if their loving father and brother were at large.

On another thread Phil asked for suggestions on good Biographical Writing, I have a couple top-of-head ones to put here. Mr, Clemens and Mark Twain, by Justin Kaplan. Zelda, by Nancy Milford. Nicholas and Alexandra, by Robert Massie.

Actually I thought Michael was being tongue-in-cheek, echoing Phil's eloquent pleas for "balance".

Peter, there is no "it", no monolithic Islam bent on forcing you to grow a beard or lose your head. It is a religion practiced to various degrees and in various ways amongst billions of people in thousands of cultures and subcultures, staggeringly diverse. It is used as a prop for the fanatic, a weapon for the despotic and a justification for the criminal or the psychopath, just as Christianity has been over the centuries.

There's really not much to say about this post, except about American gun culture, which is really a side issue. I'll just let it stand in its utter, shining ignorance of the world, which however much you don't want it, will always be near you.