About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 5:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A man is measured by those he pisses off, not those he pisses on.  -- Nathan Hawking.

Like many other luminaries, Nathan Hawking left "SOLO: the Sense of Life Objectivists" which was the precursor to Rebirth of Reason because of the fallout over a conflict between Lindsay Perigo and Barbara Branden. 
Barbara wanted to "stop the Linz bashing" but her accusing Lindsay Perigo of being an alcoholic was not the best path for that goal. 
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Branden/Holding_Court_-_June_23,_2005.shtml

This is the autobiography of Nathan in the RoR archives:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Hawking/
You can use the Google engine to Search This Site for Nathan Hawking and read more by and about him.


Post 1

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 5:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
When I worked at Kawasaki Robotics, I had a boss, Pete Plourde, who was about my age.  Over the course of two years, I learned that he was pretty interesting, a jazz musician with a bachelor's degree in music, an aviation technician with an associate's in airframe and powerplant, and last, a shop teacher, with a master's degree in vocational education. 

He did not do much teaching in schools because he went to work for GMF Robotics, a partnership created by General Motors and Fujitsu's Automated Numerical Controls division.  When Kawasaki came to the USA to sell their rebundled "Unimate" robots, they hired him.  Two years later, he hired me.  Two years after that, he was dead.

We never got along.  It was my fault.  I hate authority.  He was tolerant and helpful and cheerful.  He was also the most Japanese person I have ever met who is not from Japan.  He was nominally an American, but his mindset was perfect for Japanese companies -- and for aviation maintenance, actually, where you want people who follow procedures perfectly, rather than philosophically questioning the need for procedures (which is what I do). 

There was one time, we in the Training & Documentation department were standing around knocking Field Service.  We often worked together and I had just come from donning my official Kawasaki gray work uniform and fixing a broken robot at a Ford plant with one of the service technicians.  I must have picked up a dozen washers this guy did not replace.  "The Japanese use too many washers," he said.  Back at the office, we just shook our heads at those guys and commisated with ourselves at the injustice of their department having more status than ours.  Pete said, "You can't do that when you fix aircraft.  When you fix aircraft, you have to follow procedures, and do you know why?"  (Above our heads, in little bubbles, we  all had images of aircraft falling out of the skies...) "Because the FAA says you do, that's why!"

See, he was really sold on the rules, on having rules, on following rules.

I did not get along with him.  So, when he was killed in the project lab during a safety test, it hit us all pretty hard.

Since then, I have tried to be more open, even (or especially) when intellectual disagreements seem inevitable. 


Bill Bradford, RIP

I am very deeply saddened to report that my dear friend Bill Bradford passed away on Thursday, December 8, 2005 at the age of 58. He was the founder of Liberty magazine and a founding co-editor and publisher of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. He died at his home in Port Townsend, Washington, surrounded by family and friends, after many months of battling cancer.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/notablog/archives/000909.html 

I knew Bill from East Lansing, when he owned Liberty Coins.  I wrote an obituary for him in the MSNS MichMatist magazine, and I posted about him on Lindsay's new site, Solo Passion.

We all enjoy the intellectual rough and tumble as if it were important in the long run.  Some of it is.  Most of it is not. 

You have to ask yourself what you would say on RoR that you would not say at the funeral of the person to whom you are replying.


Post 2

Sunday, July 23, 2006 - 9:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nathan and I went round-for-round on a few issues (eg. epistemic certainty and animal cognition, for examples) -- often making literally dozens of exchanges on a single point of argument. I considered him to be an intelligent -- and very driven -- man. Though I think he was misguided, he wasn't just a troll (and shouldn't be thought of in that way).

I hope he died doing what he loves.

Ed

Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 5:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MEM wrote:

You have to ask yourself what you would say on RoR that you would not say at the funeral of the person to whom you are replying.

I do not attend the funerals of people I disliked in life, thus making the question irrelevant to me.

For the record, I did not like Nathan Hawking.  I considered him a malefactor.  His departure from this forum a year ago brought me great pleasure.  News of his departure from this life brings me no pain and no cause to shed tears.

Some people will now accuse me of an "ick" factor or "Objectivist Rage" or "poor taste" or worse.  Nevertheless, I see no value in paying phony lip service nor of letting unearned praise go uncontested.  Based on my assessment of his conduct here, the man had more vices than virtues.  I remember him that way.  He will RIP as all of us will eventually.


Post 4

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 7:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit




(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 7/24, 8:18am)


Post 5

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 8:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am saddened by Nathan Hawking's passing away.

As for Luke's comments, well, when I read Luke's malefactor article a year ago, it struck me hard with its lack of benevolence (See my comments here and here in that thread). No surprise here.


Post 6

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 1:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Selzer, no one will accuse you of anything but, your conduct is not that of a leader, or of a gentleman,that's for sure.


CD



Post 7

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 2:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Verily, golden showers are even less appreciated than being pissed off - remember that, lest you find lots of it at your own funeral....

Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Monday, July 24, 2006 - 4:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Luke, you are small, vicious, and an idiot.

(How are you doing with that dream of yours to become the leader of a new global network of Objectivist clubs based on the business techniques of McDonald’s? How do you find the time for obituaries with that one on your plate?)

Ass.


Post 9

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 2:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As so often happens between us, Jon, I hear your position, I get your position, and I reject your position.

As for my ambitions, they progress nicely, thank you very much.  Due to my excellent skills at time and energy management, I can steadily achieve them well while still having time to participate in exchanges like this one.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 2:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is probably typical for someone who practices moral perfection consistently.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 7:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

That’s right, Cal.

Can’t hurt a dead man? Well, how about his family, friends and admirers. After all, we cannot be “phony” or allow misplaced grief to go unchallenged. This oft-overlooked aspect of justice was covered in chapter three, “Super-Sized McNuggets of Virtue.”


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke said to Jon:
As so often happens between us, Jon, I hear your position, I get your position, and I reject your position.
Luke, You left out an important part: "I think about your position".
I suggest you read the article on "Honesty versus Brutal Frankness".  Here's an excerpt:

     When honesty ceases to be relevant to the real-world self-interest of the individual, it is no longer genuine honesty; it becomes the floating abstraction of “brutal frankness”—detached from reality in that it has no purpose, use, or application other than to frustrate the aims of the “brutally frank” person and to insult those around him.


Post 13

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Luke, I'll have to join the chorus here and say your comments seem unecessarily harsh as well. But I went back and read your article and saw this is one of the identifying qualities of a benefactor

• I would prefer to focus on our mutual values and harmony of interests rather than upon our currently irreconcilable disagreements.

Do you think that is what you are doing here with Nathan?

I didn't get a chance to interact with Nathan, so I don't know what kind of debater he was, but I did sign up for "We The Living" some time ago and was very moved when he announced his diagnoses and his plans and outlook. I dont think most of us, myself included, could face near immenent death with such zeal and a positive outlook.

Even though you clearly disliked his manner of interacting, is it not true that, as an objectivist or at least an admirer of Rand, he probably adhered strictly to respecting individuals, being rational, and supporting market economies? These qualities alone, which we all should always remember most of us share, should be enough to mourn his passing as it no doubt makes the world a little bit dimmer.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I too, am saddened to hear that Nathan has had his life ended much sooner than he would have liked.

Predictably, like  the rest of us, he lacked perfection.

Unpredictably, Luke felt the need to express negative opinions about this person  "he didn't need". 


Luke,

One can only wonder what rational thinking motivated your publication of those  remarks.  It's not too late to admit that you dashed off that note while your foot was too close to your mouth.

Otherwise, I await your new article on the benefits of "buzzkiller eulogies".  Another Objectivist first?

Sharon.


Good Bye Nathan.  We always knew this day would come; but yesterday, we didn't know it would be today.




.  


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Evidently we will just have to agree to disagree here.  I will make no retractions.  I plainly, flatly could not stand to interact with the man.  I considered him an utter hog of the forum who dishonestly abused a site by and for Objectivists to advance an agenda at odds with Objectivism.  Had I possessed the power, I would have banished him to the Dissent forum where he belonged.  My attitude reflects Justice in terms of giving people what they have earned.  Benevolence must serve Justice rather than subvert it.

Obviously, this has become a moot point.  However, I did not want my silence to pass as a tacit approval of the man's character.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 8:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke said:
However, I did not want my silence to pass as a tacit approval of the man's character.

This is also why I posted my comment in this thread.


Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 9:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
However, I did not want my silence to pass as a tacit approval of the man's character.
I had to laugh when I read that, although I realize this is no laughing matter. Did you really think everyone on this thread was thinking about you? Was everyone saying, well I haven't seen Luke's opinions, so he must have loved this guy? What about all the other posters who haven't chimed in? I can only speak for myself, but until someone has explicitly stated an opinion, one way or the other, I don't assume their tacit approval of anything. I thought it was unnessecary.



Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Exactly, Jonathan.

Luke made his views about Nathan perfectly clear, for all including Nathan to see back when Nathan was still posting here. Luke’s appeal to that interest now is indeed laughable.

No, he didn’t post his opinions again to protect from being seen as missing Nathan; rather he did it to be a malevolent ass.

I would leave his self-evident-assedness alone, except that Luke aspires to be a global Objectivist leader. Anyone who cares about Objectivism and uses the same forum he uses is obligated to state loudly that Luke is a robot and should not be consulted on any matter pertaining to living a life of justice and benevolence. He has demonstrated such over and over again—on this thread, and regarding sexism and racism, to name just two other disagreements I have had with him.

I am not out to get him, per se, though I will continue to hound him every time he tries to pass off his unexamined and sometimes malevolent irrationalities as consistent with Objectivism.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon wrote:

I will continue to hound him every time he tries to pass off his unexamined and sometimes malevolent irrationalities as consistent with Objectivism.

Have fun!  Trust me when I say, however, that I consider my thoughts as carefully examined, benevolent, rational and within the bounds of Objectivism.  Whether you consider them otherwise thus holds no weight with me.  I also consider myself neither sexist nor racist nor malevolent despite your evaluations to the contrary.  We have had these arguments elsewhere already so I will not revisit them here.

Perhaps you would like to undertake a leadership role here at RoR so you can exercise more of your own influence rather than simply try to exercise influence by publicly hounding me.  That might prove more effective.  I am sure Joe Rowlands could put your obvious energy to work in some fashion.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/25, 10:36am)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.