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 1Forward one pageLast Page


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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 6:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thats nice, but he also writes a vicious parody of Rand and Objectivism called

Reversalism: a philosophy for living it up

 See:  http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/ about 1/4 of the way down the page.

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

I did not post that quote to endorse Prescott's view of Objectivism - just his view of Objectivists - especially Sense of Life Objectivists.

If this is how the "enemy" sees us, (not as fanatics, for instance) then that is a good indication of how persuasive we can be to other more friendly segments with an open mind.

Nobody likes a fanatic except another fanatic.

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

I went over there and I have to say I nearly threw up. I haven't seen anything that vicious since reading Whittaker Chambers' review of Atlas Shrugged.

Jim


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 8:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

Maybe it's because I've been in Brazil too long, but I laughed until I cried. That was a damn good parody. (Prometheus Burped???  LOLOLOLOLOLOL...)

Reading it will  not make me change one bit of my thinking, though. I looked at it as you do a comedian on a late night show lampooning a public figure. Fun and nothing more serious.

If Prescott still writes copiously about Rand - even negatively, that is because Rand is still fucking with his head.

I posted a friendly comment to the parody on his blog. Who knows what the future may hold?

Michael

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 8:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

It's not just a Brazillian thing, I'm enjoying it right now. "Arnoldo Purenson Institute for Advanced Intellectual Masturbation." Ha!

Sarah

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 8:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can sympathise with his trepidation at the Little Street. If THIS were the standard introduction to Objectivism, how many people would be here today?
But Rand's use of characters such as Danny have to be considered from a literary and mythological point of view. It may have been a mistep, but a minor one, because Rand's project involved inverting traditional values and involved Trickster characters who blur boundaries between morality and immorality when the good is at the disadvantage of the powerful who claim that bad is good and good is bad. She explains this through the writer in "The Simplest Thing in the World", where the writer uses stock villians and turns them into heroes. When you're challenging 2000 years of Christianity, you're bound to deal with unsavory characters like Hickman, and Prescott would do well to understand this point in Rand's development.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 10/13, 11:00pm)


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 10:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Take your ARI bashing elsewhere, Michael, this is a clear attempt to get your squishy, non-committal views endorsed, and it makes me sick.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 1:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dead wrong, Steven.

It is meant as a compliment to Solo members.

But read it according to your own sense of life.

Michael


Edit - Actually, Steven, you piqued my interest. Would you please tell me which of my views are squishy and non-committal? I think through them and cannot find one. But I certainly don't want to go around causing illness... Just thought about them again. Yup. Solidly defined and VERY committed.
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/14, 2:31am)


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

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 5:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

You don't need anyone's approval.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 6:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

You have my approval, but mainly because you used the Glamour Shots chin scratch in you photo.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 8:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You have my approval too Michael, because your a cool guy and Steve is such a stick in the mud!

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

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 8:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

Whittaker Chambers wrote in complete earnest.  Prescott's parody is so deliberately over the top that it becomes absurd.

No one's mentioned the parody of Rand in the Illuminatus Trilogy, by Shea and Wilson.  Among their hundreds of minor characters was one Atlanta Hope, author of Telemachus Sneezed.  (Just to throw the reader off the trail, another minor character read Atlas Shrugged.) Nothing nearly as elaborate as Prescott's treatment, though.

Robert Campbell


Post 12

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 8:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One thing I've noticed in life, the more rational and sound a framework I can give to my own beliefs, the less likely I am to react to opposing beliefs with contempt

Post 13

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 8:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

It's not just the parody. In the other entry he says Rand admires the psychology of a murderer named Hickman.

Jim


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

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

I have some reading to do about Hickman and the early Rand before I can say anything further.

Robert


Post 15

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 9:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If only the parody had been funny. I think he missed the mark - a waste of words.

As to the quote, I find it hard to feel complimented in that context, by a man who despises Ayn Rand and objectivism.


crankily
John

Post 16

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 9:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

It is meant as a compliment to Solo members.

Backhanded complement, maybe.  Kinda like sayin', "Gee, you guys ain't so bad, for a buncha whack-jobs".

But hey, a compliment is a compliment!  ;o)

SmS


Post 17

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kinda like sayin', "Gee, you guys ain't so bad, for a buncha whack-jobs".
I read it as, "Gee, maybe you guys aren't a bunch of wack-jobs."

Sarah

Post 18

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 9:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I read it as, "Gee, maybe you guys aren't a bunch of wack-jobs."

Yeah, I guess I can see that as well.  I'm in a particularly cynical mood today, so perhaps I should revisit and reevaluate at a later date.

SmS


Post 19

Friday, October 14, 2005 - 1:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Fair enough, but Prescott really hits below the belt.

Jim


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.