RoR: Forum

A system is a pragmatic tool, but it is not all-inclusive

Oh? Pragmatism is unprincipleness - a system, however is, by its nature, principled .
[unless, of course, certain persons wish to use their own defining of pragmatism]

(Edited by robert malcom on 12/08, 12:28pm)

Post 61

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 12:26pm

Ok, substitute "highly efficacious". That should do it. :)

My understanding of pragmatism is as it was described in essays and lectures by William James, and the others who originated it. No need for us to go there, this thing is already two inches from a free-for-all anyway.

rde
Where's my tweezers?

(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/08, 12:29pm)

Post 62

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 12:30pm

of describing an agenda that I do not possess

Or, Rich, refusing to acknowledge...

(Edited by robert malcom on 12/08, 12:33pm)

Post 63

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 12:43pm

No, Robert, no "or" about it. I have no agenda. You'll have to take my word for it. I even checked my unconscious, and various alter-egos, we all concur. :)

I don't do hidden agendas. If I want to go after something, I just do. And anyway, it seems to me the folks around here are extremely capable of drawing their own conclusions and having their own thoughts.

rde
Building a behavioral mod torture cell in his basement.

Post 64

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 1:00pm

Rich Engle

It is true that if I were asked specifically what I "am" in terms of things like this, the answer would no longer be "Objectivist," but "Unitarian Universalist". That is my official affiliation, and it is a deep one. There are many sharp parallels between the two, as well as some sharp differences.

Then why not go hang around a "Unitarian Universalist" message board? If there are many sharp parallels then you shouldn't have trouble making like-minded friends in such a setting. What are you hoping to accomplish here? Are you hoping to convince Objectivists to become Unitarians? Or does posting here fulfill some need to be that older-but-wiser-former-Objectivist-of-20-years-yet-still-oh-so-pseudo-benevolent-because-he-now-knows-better guy? Trust me, in a place where Objectivists come to further their understanding of Objectivism or even just casually socialize, everybody hates that guy. I've seen him/her in action too many times in the past few years.

(Edited by Marvin Paul Thomas on 12/08, 1:02pm)

Post 65

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 1:19pm

Then ignore me. That way you'll have one fewer ad hominem attack lessening you. :).

And no, I do not attempt to promote the UU church here. I will, however, exercise my option to talk about it as I see fit. The UU church does not engage in "recruitment," although they politely welcome visitors when they come by.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 12/08, 1:24pm)

Post 66

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 1:40pm

Marvin:What are you hoping to accomplish here?

Marvin, I am not talking for Rich, but I think he is here because is not there, and he is here because for him to be there is like being here, for him is always important to be with himself and not with those who he doesn't need. Or to whom, he not being with those who are not here, would cause them problems, because he is not there where he should have been. Are you one of those?
I Hope my bad English doesn't confuse you.

Post 67

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 1:55pm

Ciro, I understand and you are correct. I sometimes visit UU groups, but I have little need to because I am part of an actual community and I spend a lot of time with UU folks every week.

Post 68

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 2:03pm

Come on, guys,

Rich is not one of the bad guys. I disagree with him on several matters, but I don't find my own thinking under attack by him. My convictions are much stronger than that.

It is not a bad thing to be made to think. I agree that the new orientation of this site is on activism and learning the prescribed doctrine, not so much on exploring ideas.

But still, I do not see insults or missionary work at play with Rich. I merely see a different way of looking at Objectivism, which Rich knows well. He has done all the reading for years. He is fairly clear and up-front that it is a different view, too, so he is not hiding any kind of agenda.

The only thing I see in essence is a deep-rooted love of ideas.

Why not refute those ideas - or arrive at the "let's agree to disagree point" on a clearly stated issue that people like Chris Sciabarra expound?

Rich has shown time and time again that he does not mind that stance (unlike certain posters who have been invited to leave, who preferred non-identification, non-definition, or even the work of other philosophers without knowing much about Objectivism).

If Rich has absorbed so much of the traditional literature and has arrived at a different place, does that threaten your thinking? Does that make him an immoral monster? Or maybe, just maybe... ah, never mind...

Fuck tolerance in discussions with learned people anyway (in the Kelley sense). Let us make a cult!

Michael

Post 69

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 2:57pm

I was in agreement with Jason Quintana's post on this matter and I wanted to give some indication as to why (rather than just anonymously sanctioning his remarks). Given that my comments received a dozen sanctions within a few minutes tells me that plenty of other people are wondering what in the hell Rich's purpose is in hanging out here. I've been finding his remarks on the message board to be increasingly flaky, pretentious, and condescending.

I asked a few simple questions and rather than answering Rich instead advised me to ignore him. Fair enough. I will ignore him.

(Edited by Marvin Paul Thomas on 12/08, 3:52pm)

Post 70

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 3:40pm

Jason, I certainly don't agree with many of Rich's points you've mentioned in post 58, but I don't consider them "insults." Is disagreement the same as an insult? Rich clearly, and simply, disagrees. He tries to frame his disagreement coherently (not always with convincing success), without getting personal. Getting personal would be insulting. That's how I read him, anyway.

Post 71

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 3:55pm

Teresa, George characterized this method earlier in the thread when he said (in response to Rich). :

"Are there any more insults that you would like to hurl at Objectivists? Please don�t hold back, keep rolling with your inferences, but make sure you continue to maintain your remarks as only generalized remarks; that way you can dodge any responsibility for attacking anyone in particular. "

And this is precisely what he did and has been doing for a long time. He denied once again of course that he was taking pot shots at Objectivists. Something which he is guilty of on a regular basis, though he does this in the most 'benevolent' and obscure manner possible so that us "hardcore Objectivists" look like we are picking on Eddie Willers when he's called out.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 12/08, 5:31pm)

Post 72

Thursday, December 8, 2005 - 5:59pm

I agree with Jason and Marvin on this one. He does continuously hurl thinly-veiled insults at objectivists and those who participate here. Whenever he is called upon to further explain himself, he retreats into ambiguous evasion. He recently told Machan that Tibor did not know what he was talking about when using the word "faith", using such nebulous language as this when doing so:

When religious folk use the word "faith," it is very often beyond the strict dictionary definition use. Language is used differently in many religious communities. Maybe that's against Objectivist rules, but still, it is the case.

In my church, "faith" comes largely from very solid places, such as ourselves, our families, and the religious community of which we are a part.

Jason called him out on this, and today Tibor has called him out on it and asked for a clear definition of faith, and though Rich has had time to post many threads today, he has yet to answer Tibor's very clear and very direct questions.

I can take insults all day long when they are backed by intellectual honesty. My beef with Rich is his constant, dishonest evasion that he continuously offers in the hopes that no one will find out his true positions. I'm sure Tibor's post and those posts here will be met with equivocation that would make a Pomo text sound like the most clear and concise thing ever written.

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 12/08, 6:01pm)

Post 73

Friday, December 9, 2005 - 8:36am

Marvin, Jody, Jason,

The thread?

Michael

Post 74

Friday, December 9, 2005 - 9:02am

Nothing like a good old fashioned dogpile.

Marvin, I believe I actually did answer your "questions," outside of the facetious ones. There were only two questions, and I answered them.

I did not go over and look at Tibor's thread yesterday, 'tis true. It would be silly to give a definition of "faith" to satisfy the demands. All you have to do is look it up in a few dictionaries, argue over the particulars, and then you will have one that suits you. There are subtleties and context issues that people in various types of religious communities have when they use words like faith, God, etc. It does not matter if you are not in one of those communities. I guess the simple way to say it is that the word is not used as belief in the unknown, because there are so many things in life that one can be grateful for do not require believing in something that does not exist or cannot be seen. It is the same thing I have said about "miracles". It is not necessary to try and verify or legitimize spirituality via giant miracles. Existence has ample wonder and unanswered questions and joy in even the smallest of things. That way is simply not for many folks here, and it doesn't matter.

The few people that suddenly appeared on this thread had a purpose past the thread, and that was to try and hold court or "hold me to task," whatever that sad process is that some folks do.

I agree. Return to the thread, if you actualy have any meaningful work to contribute to it. I will not engage you three, it is of no interest to me. The way you have handled yourselves, which is in an agitated, attacking kind of way, is enough. I will not go toe-to-toe with you. Characterize me as you wish, it is fine!

Post 75

Friday, December 9, 2005 - 9:55am

I'm seeing the problem here as much as with 'art' - in that the word 'faith' is being used in two manners... one in which rationality can hold - that is, propensity to adhear to a position in the future as in past [as in faith in another person's integrity], and the much more familiar one of acceptance as true of non-viable positions [beliefs, as in the supernatural and miracles and such]...

Post 76

Friday, December 9, 2005 - 10:01am

Nail on the head Robert.

Post 77

Friday, December 9, 2005 - 10:07am

What's bad is this allows sneeking in all sorts of irrationality, under the cloak of the one, to 'support' the other... really need a different word to use for the faith as 'extention of credit' kind, leaving the familiar one to fall on its own...

Post 78

Friday, December 9, 2005 - 11:09am

perhaps "confidence."

Post 79

Friday, December 9, 2005 - 11:37am