That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander.
Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject
as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon"
is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer
to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if
you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe
MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they
think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different
is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes
he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad
learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie
successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so
successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs -
telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and
that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
Here it is, lest we forget.
Pendragon, the little green monkey, revealed.
😏
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander.
Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject
as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon"
is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer
to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if
you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe
MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they
think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different
is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes
he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
I see your point and now can agree completely.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
I didn't remember this fact but it isn't at all surprising.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad
learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie
successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so
successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs -
telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and
that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
Same here, excellent observations on "Harry Lime."
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:13:15 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander. >>>Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject
as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon"
is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer
to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if
you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe
MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they
think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different >>> is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes
he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
I see your point and now can agree completely.
For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my
personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he
just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard
for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one
of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
I didn't remember this fact but it isn't at all surprising.
It just came up as a casual aside in one of the threads he opened to
flame "My Father's House," and I'm sure he'd call my use of it "out of context" as he was trying to make a different point. The actual context,
of all those threads, was that he was claiming to have discovered that "emotional and physical child abuse" and in addition "the probability of sexual abuse," in my upbringing.
Then one day, out of the blue, he added this comment:
"I'm sure I received much worse from my father than you did from yours.
But I *never* willingly submitted to it." https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vhO7kDQSMqw/m/9XUjiy-GCQAJ?hl=en
His point was the second sentence, but I found the first sentence more shocking.
He imagined that I had repeatedly experienced emotional, physical, and
even sexual abuse from my father; but he was also convinced that he had "received MUCH SORSE" from his own father than anything he imagined
happening to me. (stress added)
So I pressed him on it, and got this follow-up comment:
""I ran from my parents when they wanted to punish me. And when they
caught me (and they always did), I fought tooth and nail until I was
beaten into submission. And my punishment was always worse for having
fought back -- but I only ran a little farther and fought back a little harder the next time."
I found that even more disturbing. Fight and flight are not rational responses, but animal ones based on fear. He was afraid; but of what?
Not of being beaten, obviously; even the most scared boy would not incur
two beatings because he was afraid of one. Hia "puniahmwnra" hdd to be something far worse.
That is as much as he revealed, but it was revealing enough.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad >>> learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie >>> successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so
successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs - >>> telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and
that he could be that one.
Some comments about his relationship with his mother, as well as his
father, are probably in order here, but I'd prefer to deal with one
topic at a tie.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
Same here, excellent observations on "Harry Lime."
thanks. I have no idea if anyone will even read them here, aside from
you and I, but if I don't get them down then no one ever will.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander.
Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject
as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon"
is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer
to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if
you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe
MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they
think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different
is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes
he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad
learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie
successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so
successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs -
telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and
that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
Interesting, I'm starting to think both Harry Lime and Jim Senetto were actually projecting in their critiques of "My Father's House."
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander.
Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject
as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon"
is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer
to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if
you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe
MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they
think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different
is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes
he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad
learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie
successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so
successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs -
telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and
that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
Wow. I was going to George and his Donkey stew in their own juices for
a while, but then the Donkey reposted this.
George Dance certainly has been busy in my absence. LOL.
Unfortunately, the link to the original article says that it's been
removed, so I can't read it in context (assuming that anyone, other than
the Donkey, responded to it), or see why George was writing about me in alt.arts.poe -- a group which I'm unfamiliar with.
As to the psychobabbled Ayn Rand analogy... just wow.
Of course this all goes back to my having called the Donkey a
"second-hander" (like Peter Keating in Rand's "The Fountainhead"). As
if to prove my statement, Will turned around and seconded it back to me.
In similar fashion, my having compared George to Ellsworth Toohey on
several occasions, is being second-handed back to me as well.
But then
George is the one who claims that "tit for tat" is his personal "system
of ethics." It's also his justification for his stock in trade rebuttal
of "IKYABWAI."
Now... if I were an Ayn Rand character, which one would I be?
Not Keating or Toohey, of course (I'm nothing like the Donkey or
George). Nor Gail Wynand -- I'm a poet, not a newspaper man or a social engineer.
Nor am I a Howard Roark. While I share several of his "egoistic"
beliefs ("egotistic" in the novel, but Rand later wrote that she would
change it), I would never rape anyone or blow up a building.
I identify more with John Galt from "Atlas Shrugged" -- as I'm more of
the passive resistance martyr type. But even that isn't a very good
match.
If we must pseudo-psychoanalyze me by comparing me to a literary
character, I identify most with the following: Goldmund (from Hesse's "Goldmund & Narcissus"), Wolf Larsen (from Jack London's "The Sea
Wolf"), Manfred (in Byron's dramatic poem of the same name). I would
expand that list to include the cinematic character Arthur Parker from "Pennies from Heaven" as well.
For the benefit of illiterates like George and his Donkey, allow me to briefly describe the relevant characteristics of each of the literary
and cinematic characters listed above. Goldmund is an artist during the
late Middle Ages who abandons the monastic life, pursues his art at the expense of financial security, and achieves, the Jungian process of "actualization" through a series of romantic encounters.
Wolf Larsen is
a Darwinic Atheist who identifies with the Rebel-Hero, "Lucifer," from Milton's "Paradise Lost," whose dying words (actually, word) dismiss
religion and morality as "Bosh."
Manfred is the ultimate Byronic hero,
who refuses to accept Divine judgment at the end of his life, declaring
that his deeds were his own.
And Arthur Parker was a Depression Era
sheet music salesman who defiantly clung to his belief that life must be
like it is in the songs -- even when facing the gallows for a crime he
didn't commit.
In short, I'm an Epicurean-Pantheist-Luciferic-Byronic Romantic who
always seeks to find the ideal in a less than perfect world.
As to my alleged "lying."
This is another example of George's "IKYABWAI" ethical system at work.
"Why do you lie so much, Dunce?" is a catchphrase question that PJR
would often put to George.
Why I revived it in PJR's absence, George
immediately began tit-for-tatting it back to me.
I don't lie in Usenet groups (well, maybe a little one now and then for humor's sake -- told with a wink to those perceptive enough to pick up
on it) -- it's too easy to get caught. Conversations here are archived,
and anything one says can and will be used against them at a future
date.
I also find George's description of how abused children are prone to
becoming lying adults telling -- as George also had an abusive parent (actually both of George's parents were abusive).
It seems that George
has finally answered PJR's ongoing question of "Why do you lie so much, Dunce."
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:38:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:13:15 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe >>>> MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they >>>> think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different >>>> is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes >>>> he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
I see your point and now can agree completely.
For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my
personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he
just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard
for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one
of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity.
Hmm... as a publisher, I foster creativity -- providing other poets with
a forum in which to showcase their works.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
I didn't remember this fact but it isn't at all surprising.
It just came up as a casual aside in one of the threads he opened to
flame "My Father's House," and I'm sure he'd call my use of it "out of
context" as he was trying to make a different point. The actual context,
of all those threads, was that he was claiming to have discovered that
"emotional and physical child abuse" and in addition "the probability of
sexual abuse," in my upbringing.
Then one day, out of the blue, he added this comment:
"I'm sure I received much worse from my father than you did from yours.
But I *never* willingly submitted to it."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vhO7kDQSMqw/m/9XUjiy-GCQAJ?hl=en
His point was the second sentence, but I found the first sentence more
shocking.
He imagined that I had repeatedly experienced emotional, physical, and
even sexual abuse from my father; but he was also convinced that he had
"received MUCH SORSE" from his own father than anything he imagined
happening to me. (stress added)
You're projecting again, George. My father was never even remotely
sexually abusive. Unlike your father, for whom you claimed to have
bared your bottom every night, my father never had me remove a stitch of clothing. Nor, like your father, did he ever so much as touch, much
less smack, my rear end.
""I ran from my parents when they wanted to punish me. And when they
caught me (and they always did), I fought tooth and nail until I was
beaten into submission. And my punishment was always worse for having
fought back -- but I only ran a little farther and fought back a little
harder the next time."
I found that even more disturbing. Fight and flight are not rational
responses, but animal ones based on fear. He was afraid; but of what?
Not of being beaten, obviously; even the most scared boy would not incur
two beatings because he was afraid of one. Hia "puniahmwnra" had to be
something far worse.
That is as much as he revealed, but it was revealing enough.
You're projecting again, George.
I ran from corporal punishment because I have a natural dislike for
physical pain.
But let's focus on the second sentence (mentioned above), which you
correctly noted was my point: "I *never* willingly submitted to
[corporal punishment]."
Unlike you, I was a child of spirit. You'll note that I also said that
I "fought back." I meant that literally. I was a holy terror as a
child, and did some pretty horrible things which I prefer not to
elaborate on here.
As I'd also noted in relation to your "My Father's House" poem; I cannot imagine a child so broken in spirit that he would lie in bed with his
pajama pants pulled down every night, waiting bare-assed for his father
to come in and spank him/whip him with a belt.
The thought of a child that broken fills me with sadness.
Some comments about his relationship with his mother, as well as his
father, are probably in order here, but I'd prefer to deal with one
topic at a tie.
Since you never met them, you are certainly not the one to make any such comments.
My mother was a wonderful parent. She was fun to be with, spent all of
her day with my siblings and I, and was always encouraging our
creativity. (She was also beautiful, looked like a movie star, well educated/a school teacher, and was loved by everyone who met her.) I
have nothing but good memories of her. My mother thought that I (and my siblings) were the greatest children ever born -- and inadvertently contributed to any narcissistic tendencies I might have today. She
enrolled me in dance and music classes, the Cub Scouts, bought me
presents for each of my recitals (including a pet lamb), and was
convinced that I was going to grow up to be a movie star.
She did believe in corporal punishment, as did most parents of her generation. IIRC, you said the same thing in defense of your parents -- although keeping you in the house doing chores all day, refusing to
allow you in the living because "boys are filthy," and whipping your
bare ass every night go far beyond corporal punishment.
My mother would
never have treated me in such an unloving manner. Hell, I'd tie up her guests while they sat in the living room chairs, and she'd just laugh
and tell them I was just having fun -- which was quite true, although
her guests often failed to appreciate it.
My father was also handsome, in a dark, Sicilian kind of way. He was
even more intelligent than my mother, but since he worked all day, he
wasn't as involved with us as my mother. He did make time for us
though, taking us fishing, digging for antique bottles with me in the
woods behind our house. He rarely hit us when my mother was alive --
and then, only when we did something really bad ("Wait till your father
gets home!"). He suffered an emotional breakdown for two years after my mother's death, during which time he was prone to bouts of physical
violence. I always stood up to him, but a 12-year old boy can't do much against a 47-year old man.
After the first 6 months, his violent outburst gradually became less frequent, and had stopped altogether by the time two years had passed.
He felt bad about it, and did his best to make it up to me for the
remainder of his life (he passed 11 years after my mother). He even
bought me an MG! He died when I was 23. He'd been disabled by a series
of strokes three years prior to his death, and I returned from the Navy
to take care of him.
Unlike the self-admittedly autobiographical narrator of your poem, I've
never wanted to go back to my childhood home and burn it down. In fact,
I was deeply saddened when the new owners made it over, making it almost unrecognizable. I often daydream about buying and putting it back the
way it was in the 1960s and 70, with all of the flowers and blossoming
bushes and trees my father planted.
Except for my mother's untimely death and my father's consequent
breakdown, I had an excellent childhood -- insofar as my relationship
with my parents went. We were far from rich (lower middle income at
best by my grandmother's estimation) but my parents spoiled us rotten.
We had a swing set, a jungle gym, a swimming pool, and a tent in our
back yard, dozens of pets, they turned their den into a toy room and
filled it up with toys (my father built us a huge three compartment toy
box to keep them in, and grew up thinking that we were rich.
In many ways, my childhood was as far removed from yours as possible.
But, yes. During the time of my father's breakdown, I have no doubt
that I endured far more severe physical beatings than you ever did.
Best of times/worst of times, as Charles Dickens would say.
thanks. I have no idea if anyone will even read them here, aside from
you and I, but if I don't get them down then no one ever will.
Enjoy yourself psychoanalyzing the above. And, speaking of literary characters, my Grandmother always compared me to O. Henry's "Red Chief."
===RESTOED TEXT===
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:13:15 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander. >>>Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject
as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon"
is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer
to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if
you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe
MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they
think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different >>> is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes
he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad >>> learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie >>> successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so
successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs - >>> telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and
that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
=== /TEXT RESTORED===
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 3:45:06 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Wow. I was going to George and his Donkey stew in their own juices for
a while, but then the Donkey reposted this.
George Dance certainly has been busy in my absence. LOL.
Unfortunately, the link to the original article says that it's been
removed, so I can't read it in context (assuming that anyone, other than
the Donkey, responded to it), or see why George was writing about me in
alt.arts.poe -- a group which I'm unfamiliar with.
welcome to this thread, Mr. Monkey; I was wondering when you'd show up.
Thank you, too for illustrating one of the subjects -- why you lie and misrepresent so much -- by snipping and lying about the thread youre
replying to. To take them in turn: neither of my two posts were written during your "absence" from the group; there was no other "original
article", no link to one, and nothing about that non-existnt article
being removed; and nothing has been posted in this "alt.arts.poe" group you've apparently just made up.
As to the psychobabbled Ayn Rand analogy... just wow.
Of course this all goes back to my having called the Donkey a
"second-hander" (like Peter Keating in Rand's "The Fountainhead"). As
if to prove my statement, Will turned around and seconded it back to me.
In similar fashion, my having compared George to Ellsworth Toohey on
several occasions, is being second-handed back to me as well.
But then
George is the one who claims that "tit for tat" is his personal "system
of ethics." It's also his justification for his stock in trade rebuttal
of "IKYABWAI."
Got it: you say that comparing someone to a Randian character is "psychobabble" and that you did it first.
It's not logical to claim
both. As well, your latter claim sounds like your well-known "preemption game" (as I've labeled it): "What he said about me isn't true because I
said it about him first." Which is not logical either.
All that tells me is that you're getting defensive, and your
defensiveness is causing you to engage in transference.
Now... if I were an Ayn Rand character, which one would I be?
Not Keating or Toohey, of course (I'm nothing like the Donkey or
George). Nor Gail Wynand -- I'm a poet, not a newspaper man or a social
engineer.
Interesting. The only poet in any of Rand's novels was Lois Cook. Do you seriously identify with Lois Cook?
Nor am I a Howard Roark. While I share several of his "egoistic"
beliefs ("egotistic" in the novel, but Rand later wrote that she would
change it), I would never rape anyone or blow up a building.
I identify more with John Galt from "Atlas Shrugged" -- as I'm more of
the passive resistance martyr type. But even that isn't a very good
match.
It's quite revealing that you'd identify with Rand's most perfect (IHO) character, but don't think he's good enough either. But I'm afraid I
can't see any match at all, other than Galt convinced a group of people
to move to a hidden site and
waited for the world to die without them; which you claim to have done
to aapc.
If we must pseudo-psychoanalyze me by comparing me to a literary
character, I identify most with the following: Goldmund (from Hesse's
"Goldmund & Narcissus"), Wolf Larsen (from Jack London's "The Sea
Wolf"), Manfred (in Byron's dramatic poem of the same name). I would
expand that list to include the cinematic character Arthur Parker from
"Pennies from Heaven" as well.
For the benefit of illiterates like George and his Donkey, allow me to
briefly describe the relevant characteristics of each of the literary
and cinematic characters listed above. Goldmund is an artist during the
late Middle Ages who abandons the monastic life, pursues his art at the
expense of financial security, and achieves, the Jungian process of
"actualization" through a series of romantic encounters.
Wolf Larsen is
a Darwinic Atheist who identifies with the Rebel-Hero, "Lucifer," from
Milton's "Paradise Lost," whose dying words (actually, word) dismiss
religion and morality as "Bosh."
Manfred is the ultimate Byronic hero,
who refuses to accept Divine judgment at the end of his life, declaring
that his deeds were his own.
And Arthur Parker was a Depression Era
sheet music salesman who defiantly clung to his belief that life must be
like it is in the songs -- even when facing the gallows for a crime he
didn't commit.
So you identify with characters who (1) are financially unstable, (2 and
3) reject religion (and ethics), and (4) have a delusional view of the
world. That's illuminating, but it doesn't answer the question we were debating.
In short, I'm an Epicurean-Pantheist-Luciferic-Byronic Romantic who
always seeks to find the ideal in a less than perfect world.
As to my alleged "lying."
This is another example of George's "IKYABWAI" ethical system at work.
"Why do you lie so much, Dunce?" is a catchphrase question that PJR
would often put to George.
So you're copying "PJR" again (which is probably one reason Will came up
with the theory that you're mostly a "second-hander" like Keating.
Why I revived it in PJR's absence, George
immediately began tit-for-tatting it back to me.
No, Lying Michael; I don't use that phrase. Whenever I catch you in a
lie I simply note it by calling you Lying Michael, and move on.
I don't lie in Usenet groups (well, maybe a little one now and then for
humor's sake -- told with a wink to those perceptive enough to pick up
on it) -- it's too easy to get caught. Conversations here are archived,
and anything one says can and will be used against them at a future
date.
As I've explained to you many a time; nor is it a good yet here you are, trying it yet again.
The question, as Will asked, is why you do it.
I also find George's description of how abused children are prone to
becoming lying adults telling -- as George also had an abusive parent
(actually both of George's parents were abusive).
No, Lying Michael, that is not what I said (which is probably why you
tried snipping it.) I said it's reasonable to think that all children
try lying to escape punishment at some time. Whether they continue it,
as children and later on as adults, is contingent on how well it worked
for them.
It seems that George
has finally answered PJR's ongoing question of "Why do you lie so much,
Dunce."
I've answered that question many a time, usually with "Why do you
project so much, Piggy?" - the same phrase I use on you when
you copy it. Of course, with him (and with you) it's as much conscious preemption as much as unconscious projection, but
there was no point trying to explain all that to him.
===RESTOED TEXT===
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:13:15 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander. >>>Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject
as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon"
is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer
to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if
you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe
MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they
think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different >>> is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes
he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad >>> learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie >>> successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so
successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs - >>> telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and
that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
=== /TEXT RESTORED===
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 3:45:06 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
Wow. I was going to George and his Donkey stew in their own juices for
a while, but then the Donkey reposted this.
George Dance certainly has been busy in my absence. LOL.
Unfortunately, the link to the original article says that it's been
removed, so I can't read it in context (assuming that anyone, other than
the Donkey, responded to it), or see why George was writing about me in
alt.arts.poe -- a group which I'm unfamiliar with.
welcome to this thread, Mr. Monkey; I was wondering when you'd show up.
Thank you, too for illustrating one of the subjects -- why you lie and misrepresent so much -- by snipping and lying about the thread youre
replying to. To take them in turn: neither of my two posts were written during your "absence" from the group; there was no other "original
article", no link to one, and nothing about that non-existnt article
being removed; and nothing has been posted in this "alt.arts.poe" group you've apparently just made up.
Rudy Canoza wrote:https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poe try.comments#254114
W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 5:20:24 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:38:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:13:15 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe >>>>> MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they >>>>> think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus" >>>>> view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different >>>>> is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes >>>>> he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That >>>>> makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel, >>>>> Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is >>>>> still an open question.
I see your point and now can agree completely.
For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my
personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he
just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard
for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one
of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity.
Hmm... as a publisher, I foster creativity -- providing other poets with
a forum in which to showcase their works.
Doesn't help; I'm sure that both Wynand and Toohey would have said they
were "fostering creativity." As a publisher, Wynand employed several columnists who could write what they wanted -- unless they wrote
something he didn't like, in which case he'd "ban" (fire) them. That
last sounds like you. While Toohey's war on independent thought and creativity was to assemble a collective of mediocre talents and promote
the hell out of them. That also sounds like you.
I'm afraid the question is still unresolved, and you haven't done a
thing to help resolve it.
I didn't remember this fact but it isn't at all surprising.Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key. >>>>
It just came up as a casual aside in one of the threads he opened to
flame "My Father's House," and I'm sure he'd call my use of it "out of
context" as he was trying to make a different point. The actual context, >>> of all those threads, was that he was claiming to have discovered that
"emotional and physical child abuse" and in addition "the probability of >>> sexual abuse," in my upbringing.
Then one day, out of the blue, he added this comment:
"I'm sure I received much worse from my father than you did from yours.
But I *never* willingly submitted to it."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vhO7kDQSMqw/m/9XUjiy-GCQAJ?hl=en
His point was the second sentence, but I found the first sentence more
shocking.
He imagined that I had repeatedly experienced emotional, physical, and
even sexual abuse from my father; but he was also convinced that he had
"received MUCH SORSE" from his own father than anything he imagined
happening to me. (stress added)
You're projecting again, George. My father was never even remotely
sexually abusive. Unlike your father, for whom you claimed to have
bared your bottom every night, my father never had me remove a stitch of
clothing. Nor, like your father, did he ever so much as touch, much
less smack, my rear end.
Now that is interesting. Your father used to beat you regularly, in
addition to his "punishments," but not on your read end. Where exactly
did he regularly hit you?
""I ran from my parents when they wanted to punish me. And when they
caught me (and they always did), I fought tooth and nail until I was
beaten into submission. And my punishment was always worse for having
fought back -- but I only ran a little farther and fought back a little
harder the next time."
I found that even more disturbing. Fight and flight are not rational
responses, but animal ones based on fear. He was afraid; but of what?
Not of being beaten, obviously; even the most scared boy would not incur >>> two beatings because he was afraid of one. Hia "puniahmwnra" had to be
something far worse.
That is as much as he revealed, but it was revealing enough.
You're projecting again, George.
No, MMP. I was never afraid enough to react that way to my father's punishments. Perhaps I originally reacted like that to being punished,
back when it was my mother or Granny doing the hitting; but I'd
definitely outgrown that by age six.
I ran from corporal punishment because I have a natural dislike for
physical pain.
Virtually everyone dislikes physical pain. But not all of them will
blindly lash out or run away out of fear of it.
But let's focus on the second sentence (mentioned above), which you
correctly noted was my point: "I *never* willingly submitted to
[corporal punishment]."
Unlike you, I was a child of spirit. You'll note that I also said that
I "fought back." I meant that literally. I was a holy terror as a
child, and did some pretty horrible things which I prefer not to
elaborate on here.
I'm sure you did. Your whole family, in fact, sounds like a terror:
ehildren would hit children, parents would hit children, children would
hit parents. The only thing you haven't told us is whether your parents
hit each other.
As I'd also noted in relation to your "My Father's House" poem; I cannot
imagine a child so broken in spirit that he would lie in bed with his
pajama pants pulled down every night, waiting bare-assed for his father
to come in and spank him/whip him with a belt.
The thought of a child that broken fills me with sadness.
Leaving aside your lies (for humorous effect or not) about what I
actually wrote in my poem or what I told you later, Lying Michael, I'll repeat that I can imagine a child so scared that he'd fight or run mindlessly, even though he'd know the result would be a beating in
addition to the dreaded "punishment".
Some comments about his relationship with his mother, as well as his
father, are probably in order here, but I'd prefer to deal with one
topic at a tie.
Since you never met them, you are certainly not the one to make any such
comments.
Now, that's ironic coming from someone who loves to comment on others' parents when he's never met any of them. Unlike you, though, I'll base
my comments on what you've actually said about them.
My mother was a wonderful parent. She was fun to be with, spent all of
her day with my siblings and I, and was always encouraging our
creativity. (She was also beautiful, looked like a movie star, well
educated/a school teacher, and was loved by everyone who met her.) I
have nothing but good memories of her. My mother thought that I (and my
siblings) were the greatest children ever born -- and inadvertently
contributed to any narcissistic tendencies I might have today. She
enrolled me in dance and music classes, the Cub Scouts, bought me
presents for each of my recitals (including a pet lamb), and was
convinced that I was going to grow up to be a movie star.
That's helpful; it doesn't contradict my theories but rather supports
them.
She did believe in corporal punishment, as did most parents of her
generation. IIRC, you said the same thing in defense of your parents --
although keeping you in the house doing chores all day, refusing to
allow you in the living because "boys are filthy," and whipping your
bare ass every night go far beyond corporal punishment.
Incidentally, Lying Michael, they go far beyond anything you've read in
my poem or anything I've told you about it later, as well. I can
understand how desperate you are to change the subject to that poem of
mine - if you do succeed, of course, I'll just move things to a new
thread and leave this one open to write in after you've moved on.
My mother would
never have treated me in such an unloving manner. Hell, I'd tie up her
guests while they sat in the living room chairs, and she'd just laugh
and tell them I was just having fun -- which was quite true, although
her guests often failed to appreciate it.
You'd "tie up the guests" a la Red Chief and your mother would laugh at
them? I suppose you didn't get many repeat guests.
My father was also handsome, in a dark, Sicilian kind of way. He was
even more intelligent than my mother, but since he worked all day, he
wasn't as involved with us as my mother. He did make time for us
though, taking us fishing, digging for antique bottles with me in the
woods behind our house. He rarely hit us when my mother was alive --
and then, only when we did something really bad ("Wait till your father
gets home!"). He suffered an emotional breakdown for two years after my
mother's death, during which time he was prone to bouts of physical
violence. I always stood up to him, but a 12-year old boy can't do much
against a 47-year old man.
After the first 6 months, his violent outburst gradually became less
frequent, and had stopped altogether by the time two years had passed.
He felt bad about it, and did his best to make it up to me for the
remainder of his life (he passed 11 years after my mother). He even
bought me an MG! He died when I was 23. He'd been disabled by a series
of strokes three years prior to his death, and I returned from the Navy
to take care of him.
That last is interesting. Is that what you meant about "finally getting
the upper hand" in your relationship with him?
Unlike the self-admittedly autobiographical narrator of your poem, I've
never wanted to go back to my childhood home and burn it down. In fact,
I was deeply saddened when the new owners made it over, making it almost
unrecognizable. I often daydream about buying and putting it back the
way it was in the 1960s and 70, with all of the flowers and blossoming
bushes and trees my father planted.
I've read that is the normal response to unresolved issues from one's childhood: wanting to go back and fix it all up. But that wouldn't make
for a very dramatic ending to a work of fiction and remember, as I told
you, I was writing dramatic fiction, not autobiography.
Except for my mother's untimely death and my father's consequent
breakdown, I had an excellent childhood -- insofar as my relationship
with my parents went. We were far from rich (lower middle income at
best by my grandmother's estimation) but my parents spoiled us rotten.
We had a swing set, a jungle gym, a swimming pool, and a tent in our
back yard, dozens of pets, they turned their den into a toy room and
filled it up with toys (my father built us a huge three compartment toy
box to keep them in, and grew up thinking that we were rich.
In many ways, my childhood was as far removed from yours as possible.
But, yes. During the time of my father's breakdown, I have no doubt
that I endured far more severe physical beatings than you ever did.
Best of times/worst of times, as Charles Dickens would say.
That is not what you said earlier, MMP. In the quoted text you
distinctly mention that you fled from and fought both your parents.
thanks. I have no idea if anyone will even read them here, aside from
you and I, but if I don't get them down then no one ever will.
Enjoy yourself psychoanalyzing the above. And, speaking of literary
characters, my Grandmother always compared me to O. Henry's "Red Chief."
It may be good background material, but for now it will just go into the
file with all the rest.
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 20:58:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:45:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander. >>>>Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject >>>> as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon" >>>> is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer >>>> to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if >>>> you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe >>>> MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they >>>> think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different >>>> is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes >>>> he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad >>>> learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie >>>> successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so >>>> successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs - >>>> telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and >>>> that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
Interesting, I'm starting to think both Harry Lime and Jim Senetto were
actually projecting in their critiques of "My Father's House."
I can imagine that for the Lime sock (MMP). As far as his Chimp, though,
I don't want to leap to that conclusion for him. Remember, he is the
less intelligent of the two, and in consequence he just believes and
says whatever MMP tells him to. That could be all he was doing in those
threads as well.
It seems that Senetto took the lead in attempting to drive Stephan
Pickering from the newsgroup though, but that may have been fueled by Senetto's obvious Antisemitism.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander.
Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject
as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon"
is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer
to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if
you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe
MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they
think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different
is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes
he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad
learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie
successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so
successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs -
telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and
that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
Hello George, I haven't been able to look at the newsgroup since last
night Friday became really busy.
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 20:58:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:45:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander. >>>>Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject >>>> as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon" >>>> is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer >>>> to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if >>>> you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe >>>> MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they >>>> think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different >>>> is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes >>>> he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad >>>> learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie >>>> successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so >>>> successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs - >>>> telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and >>>> that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
Interesting, I'm starting to think both Harry Lime and Jim Senetto were
actually projecting in their critiques of "My Father's House."
I can imagine that for the Lime sock (MMP). As far as his Chimp, though,
I don't want to leap to that conclusion for him. Remember, he is the
less intelligent of the two, and in consequence he just believes and
says whatever MMP tells him to. That could be all he was doing in those
threads as well.
It seems that Senetto took the lead in attempting to drive Stephan
Pickering from the newsgroup though, but that may have been fueled by Senetto's obvious Antisemitism.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 2:28:41 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 20:58:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:45:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander. >>>>>Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential >>>>> points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject >>>>> as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon" >>>>> is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer >>>>> to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if >>>>> you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe >>>>> MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they >>>>> think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus" >>>>> view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different >>>>> is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes >>>>> he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That >>>>> makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel, >>>>> Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is >>>>> still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key. >>>>> Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad >>>>> learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at >>>>> least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie >>>>> successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so >>>>> successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think >>>>> that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs - >>>>> telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and >>>>> that he could be that one.
I can imagine that for the Lime sock (MMP). As far as his Chimp, though, >>> I don't want to leap to that conclusion for him. Remember, he is the
less intelligent of the two, and in consequence he just believes and
says whatever MMP tells him to. That could be all he was doing in those
threads as well.
It seems that Senetto took the lead in attempting to drive Stephan
Pickering from the newsgroup though, but that may have been fueled by
Senetto's obvious Antisemitism.
Thanks for reminding me. It was actually MMP who did that by bringing
NAMBLA to the group. That triggered Jim, just the way MFH triggered him
after he was told that it was really about child molesting.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 5:55:00 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 2:28:41 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 20:58:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:45:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Interesting, I'm starting to think both Harry Lime and Jim Senetto were >>>>> actually projecting in their critiques of "My Father's House."
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander.
Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential >>>>>> points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject >>>>>> as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon" >>>>>> is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer >>>>>> to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if >>>>>> you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe >>>>>> MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they >>>>>> think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus" >>>>>> view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different >>>>>> is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes >>>>>> he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That >>>>>> makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel, >>>>>> Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is >>>>>> still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key. >>>>>> Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad >>>>>> learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at >>>>>> least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie >>>>>> successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so >>>>>> successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think >>>>>> that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs - >>>>>> telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and >>>>>> that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly. >>>>>
I can imagine that for the Lime sock (MMP). As far as his Chimp, though, >>>> I don't want to leap to that conclusion for him. Remember, he is the
less intelligent of the two, and in consequence he just believes and
says whatever MMP tells him to. That could be all he was doing in those >>>> threads as well.
It seems that Senetto took the lead in attempting to drive Stephan
Pickering from the newsgroup though, but that may have been fueled by
Senetto's obvious Antisemitism.
Thanks for reminding me. It was actually MMP who did that by bringing
NAMBLA to the group. That triggered Jim, just the way MFH triggered him
after he was told that it was really about child molesting.
Oh yes, the old Allen Ginsberg joined NAMBLA thing which then gave Jim Senetto and excuse to vent his anti Semitic feelings against Stephan Pickering.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 17:31:42 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 16:57:53 +0000, Wlll Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 5:55:00 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 2:28:41 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 20:58:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:45:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Interesting, I'm starting to think both Harry Lime and Jim Senetto were >>>>>>> actually projecting in their critiques of "My Father's House."
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander.
Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential >>>>>>>> points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject >>>>>>>> as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon"
is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer >>>>>>>> to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if
you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe
MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they
think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus" >>>>>>>> view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different
is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes >>>>>>>> he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That >>>>>>>> makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel, >>>>>>>> Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is >>>>>>>> still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key. >>>>>>>> Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape >>>>>>>> punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad
learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at >>>>>>>> least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie
successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie >>>>>>>> successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so
successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think >>>>>>>> that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs -
telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and >>>>>>>> that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly. >>>>>>>
I can imagine that for the Lime sock (MMP). As far as his Chimp, though, >>>>>> I don't want to leap to that conclusion for him. Remember, he is the >>>>>> less intelligent of the two, and in consequence he just believes and >>>>>> says whatever MMP tells him to. That could be all he was doing in those >>>>>> threads as well.
It seems that Senetto took the lead in attempting to drive Stephan
Pickering from the newsgroup though, but that may have been fueled by >>>>> Senetto's obvious Antisemitism.
Thanks for reminding me. It was actually MMP who did that by bringing
NAMBLA to the group. That triggered Jim, just the way MFH triggered him >>>> after he was told that it was really about child molesting.
Oh yes, the old Allen Ginsberg joined NAMBLA thing which then gave Jim
Senetto and excuse to vent his anti Semitic feelings against Stephan
Pickering.
Again, go fuck yourself
You first, Pendragon, you lying delusional troll.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 16:57:53 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 5:55:00 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 2:28:41 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 20:58:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:45:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Interesting, I'm starting to think both Harry Lime and Jim Senetto were >>>>>> actually projecting in their critiques of "My Father's House."
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander.
Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential >>>>>>> points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject >>>>>>> as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon" >>>>>>> is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer >>>>>>> to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if >>>>>>> you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe >>>>>>> MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they >>>>>>> think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus" >>>>>>> view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different
is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes >>>>>>> he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That >>>>>>> makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel, >>>>>>> Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is >>>>>>> still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key. >>>>>>> Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape >>>>>>> punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad
learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at >>>>>>> least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie
successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie >>>>>>> successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so >>>>>>> successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think >>>>>>> that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs -
telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and >>>>>>> that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly. >>>>>>
I can imagine that for the Lime sock (MMP). As far as his Chimp, though, >>>>> I don't want to leap to that conclusion for him. Remember, he is the >>>>> less intelligent of the two, and in consequence he just believes and >>>>> says whatever MMP tells him to. That could be all he was doing in those >>>>> threads as well.
It seems that Senetto took the lead in attempting to drive Stephan
Pickering from the newsgroup though, but that may have been fueled by
Senetto's obvious Antisemitism.
Thanks for reminding me. It was actually MMP who did that by bringing
NAMBLA to the group. That triggered Jim, just the way MFH triggered him
after he was told that it was really about child molesting.
Oh yes, the old Allen Ginsberg joined NAMBLA thing which then gave Jim
Senetto and excuse to vent his anti Semitic feelings against Stephan
Pickering.
Again, go fuck yourself, you fat, drunken, lying, illiterate, unwashed redneck p,o,s.
Jim never made any anti Semitic remarks to Pickles -- or to anyone else, myself included -- and unlike Pickles, I actually am Jewish (Pickles
claimed that he self-converted, which any real Jew can tell you is not a real, or accepted, conversion.)
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 20:58:37 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:45:51 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poetry.comments#254114
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander. >>>>Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject >>>> as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael Pendragon" >>>> is just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer >>>> to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of course, if >>>> you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe >>>> MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they >>>> think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the "consensus"
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different >>>> is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes >>>> he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. That
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad >>>> learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie >>>> successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so >>>> successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs - >>>> telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and >>>> that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
Interesting, I'm starting to think both Harry Lime and Jim Senetto were
actually projecting in their critiques of "My Father's House."
I can imagine that for the Lime sock (MMP). As far as his Chimp, though,
I don't want to leap to that conclusion for him. Remember, he is the
less intelligent of the two, and in consequence he just believes and
says whatever MMP tells him to. That could be all he was doing in those
threads as well.
It seems that Senetto took the lead in attempting to drive Stephan
Pickering from the newsgroup though, but that may have been fueled by Senetto's obvious Antisemitism.
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 22:05:31 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Of course this all goes back to my having called the Donkey a
"second-hander" (like Peter Keating in Rand's "The Fountainhead"). As
if to prove my statement, Will turned around and seconded it back to me. >>> In similar fashion, my having compared George to Ellsworth Toohey on
several occasions, is being second-handed back to me as well.
But then
George is the one who claims that "tit for tat" is his personal "system
of ethics." It's also his justification for his stock in trade rebuttal >>> of "IKYABWAI."
Got it: you say that comparing someone to a Randian character is
"psychobabble" and that you did it first.
No, lying George. I did not say that I did it first.
Your post was a
steaming pile of nonsensical psychobabble. My post was a clinical
evaluation of your personality based on the content of your posts.
It is, however, telling that you've cried "preemption!" in dozens of
threads over the years -- followed by your typical IKYABWAI response.
Face it, George. Every post you make is an IKYABWAI. You are
apparently incapable of independent thought, and your only recourse in
an argument is to stamp your foot and bawl out "Nuh uh! YOU ARE!"
All that tells me is that you're getting defensive, and your
defensiveness is causing you to engage in transference.
Do you really believe that pointing out an example of IKYABWAI is a
defensive act?
I compared you to Ellsworth Toohey, so you turn around
and shout "I'm not Toohey, YOU'RE Toohey!"
Which only shows that you have the emotional maturity of a 5-year old --
and only a fraction of their imagination.
I identify more with John Galt from "Atlas Shrugged" -- as I'm more of
the passive resistance martyr type. But even that isn't a very good
match.
It's quite revealing that you'd identify with Rand's most perfect (IHO)
character, but don't think he's good enough either. But I'm afraid I
can't see any match at all, other than Galt convinced a group of people
to move to a hidden site and
waited for the world to die without them; which you claim to have done
to aapc.
Hmm... I hadn't thought of that. Thank you for pointing it out.
What is the point of trying to fit me into a mold that was cut out for somebody else?
RHETORICAL QUESTION ALERT: The answer, of course, is that it provides
you with an excuse for stamping your foot and shouting back "I'm not
Toohey! YOU'RE Toohey!"
As to my alleged "lying."
This is another example of George's "IKYABWAI" ethical system at work.
"Why do you lie so much, Dunce?" is a catchphrase question that PJR
would often put to George.
So you're copying "PJR" again (which is probably one reason Will came up
with the theory that you're mostly a "second-hander" like Keating.
We've been over this in the past, George.
I'm not copying PJR. I'm referencing him.
When a catchphrase like "Why do you lie so much, Dunce?" is picked up by various members of a group, it's a strong indicator that there is more
than a grain of truth behind it.
In terms you might better be able to understand, I am not just asking
you why you lie so much -- I am pointing out that others here have
accused you of doing just that.
Why I revived it in PJR's absence, George
immediately began tit-for-tatting it back to me.
No, Lying Michael; I don't use that phrase. Whenever I catch you in a
lie I simply note it by calling you Lying Michael, and move on.
Really, George. You're acting like a butthurt little boy again.
When I pose the rhetorical question of "Why do you lie so much, Dunce?",
you respond in typical tit-for-tat fashion by addressing me as "Lying Michael."
An adult would choose to refute the point I'd claimed they'd been lying
about -- assuming that my accusation was untrue.
Refutation goes a much
farther way to establishing one's innocence than yet another variation
on IKYABWAI.
And where is the archival evidence to back your statement up?
One only has to look at this particular exchange to see that you are
simply repeating back what I said to you, and redirecting it back at me (IKYABWAI).
As previously noted, you repeatedly show yourself to be incapable of expressing a single original thought.
I also find George's description of how abused children are prone to
becoming lying adults telling -- as George also had an abusive parent
(actually both of George's parents were abusive).
No, Lying Michael, that is not what I said (which is probably why you
tried snipping it.) I said it's reasonable to think that all children
try lying to escape punishment at some time. Whether they continue it,
as children and later on as adults, is contingent on how well it worked
for them.
Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
Don't you realize that I can easily reference the statements you've made
in *this* thread?
Here is what you said, and I quote:
"Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie successfully, and escape punishment, more than once."
It seems that George
has finally answered PJR's ongoing question of "Why do you lie so much,
Dunce."
I've answered that question many a time, usually with "Why do you
project so much, Piggy?" - the same phrase I use on you when
you copy it. Of course, with him (and with you) it's as much conscious
preemption as unconscious projection, but
there was no point trying to explain all that to him.
You are wrong, George. It's merely the recognition of something that is obvious to everyone here
-- that you are a pathological liar. In one
post in this thread, you claimed that abused children were prone to
becoming liars in adult life. When I referred to your statement, you
denied it, claiming that you'd only said that all children lied at one
time or another. I only had to return to the beginning of this thread
to pull your original statement and post it here for all to see.
You lie.
Not once. Not twice. But over and over again.
The sad part is that I don't think you're even aware that you are doing
it. Lying has become such an ingrained part of your personality
(including lying to yourself), that you subconsciously falsify your perception of yourself, and others, on a continuous basis.
Take your comments on "My Father's House"snip
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 5:55:00 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:51:14 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MMP) aka "HarryLime" wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 22:05:31 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Of course this all goes back to my having called the Donkey a
"second-hander" (like Peter Keating in Rand's "The Fountainhead"). As >>>> if to prove my statement, Will turned around and seconded it back to me. >>>> In similar fashion, my having compared George to Ellsworth Toohey on
several occasions, is being second-handed back to me as well.
But then
George is the one who claims that "tit for tat" is his personal "system >>>> of ethics." It's also his justification for his stock in trade rebuttal >>>> of "IKYABWAI."
Got it: you say that comparing someone to a Randian character is
"psychobabble" and that you did it first.
No, lying George. I did not say that I did it first.
Oh? Let us look at what you did just say in this thread:
MMP (Jan. 31) - "In similar fashion, my having compared George to
Ellsworth Toohey on several occasions, is being second-handed back to me
as well.
MMP (Feb. 1) - "No, lying George. I did not say that I did it first."
Of course, now by your rules I can't even call you Lying Michael for
that, because you called me "lying George" first. That's your (and
PJR's) "preemption game" in a nutshell.
Your post was a
steaming pile of nonsensical psychobabble. My post was a clinical
evaluation of your personality based on the content of your posts.
Back when you wrote your many posts on me, I told you they were "psychobabble" - now you're using my term against me. Is it evidence for
my analysis to label this poest of yours an example of IKYABWAI? No.
Then why do you think it's evidence for yours to do the same thing to my posts?
It is, however, telling that you've cried "preemption!" in dozens of
threads over the years -- followed by your typical IKYABWAI response.
Face it, George. Every post you make is an IKYABWAI. You are
apparently incapable of independent thought, and your only recourse in
an argument is to stamp your foot and bawl out "Nuh uh! YOU ARE!"
All that tells me is that you're getting defensive, and your
defensiveness is causing you to engage in transference.
Do you really believe that pointing out an example of IKYABWAI is a
defensive act?
Your post is a textbook example of transference (where the subject
starts trying to psychoanalyze the analyst) which exhibits classic defensiveness.
I compared you to Ellsworth Toohey, so you turn around
and shout "I'm not Toohey, YOU'RE Toohey!"
Whatever yuu called me years ago, Lying Michael, I have not concluded
that you're Toohey. Therefore I have NOT said that, even once.
Which only shows that you have the emotional maturity of a 5-year old --
and only a fraction of their imagination.
And you insist that you are not getting defensive? Fascinating.
anip
I identify more with John Galt from "Atlas Shrugged" -- as I'm more of >>>> the passive resistance martyr type. But even that isn't a very good
match.
It's quite revealing that you'd identify with Rand's most perfect (IHO)
character, but don't think he's good enough either. But I'm afraid I
can't see any match at all, other than Galt convinced a group of people
to move to a hidden site and
waited for the world to die without them; which you claim to have done
to aapc.
Hmm... I hadn't thought of that. Thank you for pointing it out.
You're welcome. Please try to listen to what you're being told, and you
may discover a few more gems.
snip
What is the point of trying to fit me into a mold that was cut out for
somebody else?
RHETORICAL QUESTION ALERT: The answer, of course, is that it provides
you with an excuse for stamping your foot and shouting back "I'm not
Toohey! YOU'RE Toohey!"
Once again, Lying Michael, I have not identified you with Toohey.
As to my alleged "lying."
This is another example of George's "IKYABWAI" ethical system at work.
"Why do you lie so much, Dunce?" is a catchphrase question that PJR
would often put to George.
So you're copying "PJR" again (which is probably one reason Will came up >>> with the theory that you're mostly a "second-hander" like Keating.
We've been over this in the past, George.
Indeed we have. This phrase is the classic instance of PJR's use of the preemption game: He would begin most posts to me and others with "Why do
you lie so much, X" - and then when X caught him in a lie, he could
shrug it off as "IKYABWAI" (as if that were some kind of proof that he
was not lying).
I'm not copying PJR. I'm referencing him.
You copy him every time you begin a post, to me or to anyone else, with
the above line.
When a catchphrase like "Why do you lie so much, Dunce?" is picked up by
various members of a group, it's a strong indicator that there is more
than a grain of truth behind it.
Yet if all the "various members" using a term are tied to the person who began using it (whether PJR or yourself), it is evidence of nothing more
than those ties.
In terms you might better be able to understand, I am not just asking
you why you lie so much -- I am pointing out that others here have
accused you of doing just that.
Why I revived it in PJR's absence, George
immediately began tit-for-tatting it back to me.
No, Lying Michael; I don't use that phrase. Whenever I catch you in a
lie I simply note it by calling you Lying Michael, and move on.
Really, George. You're acting like a butthurt little boy again.
Note to self: the subject continues to deny he is engaging in
transference.
When I pose the rhetorical question of "Why do you lie so much, Dunce?",
you respond in typical tit-for-tat fashion by addressing me as "Lying
Michael."
No, Lying Michael. The only time I call you Lying Michael is when you
have told a lie in the paragraph I am immediately responding to - it
makes them easier to find, when someone does a search.
An adult would choose to refute the point I'd claimed they'd been lying
about -- assuming that my accusation was untrue.
Indeed it does. Which is why every paragraph I write with that uses the
term "Lying Michael" contains a refutation of what the lie I am pointing
to.
Refutation goes a much
farther way to establishing one's innocence than yet another variation
on IKYABWAI.
That is correct.
And where is the archival evidence to back your statement up?
Do a search on the group for "Lying Michael". For older statements, do a search on the group for "Pedodragon lie."
One only has to look at this particular exchange to see that you are
simply repeating back what I said to you, and redirecting it back at me
(IKYABWAI).
As previously noted, you repeatedly show yourself to be incapable of
expressing a single original thought.
I also find George's description of how abused children are prone to
becoming lying adults telling -- as George also had an abusive parent
(actually both of George's parents were abusive).
No, Lying Michael, that is not what I said (which is probably why you
tried snipping it.) I said it's reasonable to think that all children
try lying to escape punishment at some time. Whether they continue it,
as children and later on as adults, is contingent on how well it worked
for them.
Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
Don't you realize that I can easily reference the statements you've made
in *this* thread?
Here is what you said, and I quote:
"Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad
learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie
successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once."
Exactly. "Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to
escape punishment" (not just abused children, but all children) -- and whether they learn to be liars depends on how successful their attempts
at lying as chilsewn were.
It seems that George
has finally answered PJR's ongoing question of "Why do you lie so much, >>>> Dunce."
I've answered that question many a time, usually with "Why do you
project so much, Piggy?" - the same phrase I use on you when
you copy it. Of course, with him (and with you) it's as much conscious
preemption as unconscious projection, but
there was no point trying to explain all that to him.
You are wrong, George. It's merely the recognition of something that is
obvious to everyone here
If you still had "everyone" (Team Monkey and your assorted Bandar-Log)
here in this group, they would be quoting and sharing your post back and forth, and that would be all people would be able to read. However, as
you have already noted, "everyone" is not "here" - they have all gone
away to your facebook group, leaving just you, me, and my colleague.
-- that you are a pathological liar. In one
post in this thread, you claimed that abused children were prone to
becoming liars in adult life. When I referred to your statement, you
denied it, claiming that you'd only said that all children lied at one
time or another. I only had to return to the beginning of this thread
to pull your original statement and post it here for all to see.
That is the post we are now discussing. However, However, Lying Michael,
the statement you found and put back in the thread (thank you for doing
that) says exactly what I claimed it does; while your paraphrase was
shown to be another lie and misrepresentation.
You lie.
Not once. Not twice. But over and over again.
The sad part is that I don't think you're even aware that you are doing
it. Lying has become such an ingrained part of your personality
(including lying to yourself), that you subconsciously falsify your
perception of yourself, and others, on a continuous basis.
Now, all that sounds like things I have said about you. But rather than
slip into the preemption game by caling it IKYABWAI, I think it would be
more productive to simply note that you're engaging in transference
(trying to analyze your analyst) and move on.
snip
Take your comments on "My Father's House"
Oh, indeed I shall - but not in this thread. I understand how it feels
to be the involuntary subject of analysis, so I can understand why you'd
want to change the subject and try to analyze your analysts.
Nevertheless, that is an unproductive path that will not help either of
us.
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:24:09 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 5:20:24 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:38:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my
personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he >>>> just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard >>>> for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one >>>> of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity.
Hmm... as a publisher, I foster creativity -- providing other poets with >>> a forum in which to showcase their works.
Doesn't help; I'm sure that both Wynand and Toohey would have said they
were "fostering creativity." As a publisher, Wynand employed several
columnists who could write what they wanted -- unless they wrote
something he didn't like, in which case he'd "ban" (fire) them. That
last sounds like you. While Toohey's war on independent thought and
creativity was to assemble a collective of mediocre talents and promote
the hell out of them. That also sounds like you.
I'm afraid the question is still unresolved, and you haven't done a
thing to help resolve it.
You are devaluing Wynand. Wynand's motivations were originally noble
(in Ayn Rand's view), but he became corrupted (or, rather, compromised)
over time. Once having established a position of wealth and power, he
wanted to hold onto it, and was willing to compromise his ethics in
order to do so.
This is opposed to Roark, who is willing to risk
everything he owns, and all of the progress he has made in the hierarchy
of his chosen field, to be true to his personal values.
Wynand redeems himself later in the novel, and is last seen having
returned to his original, Ubermenschian self.
Toohey, otoh, is a one-dimensional symbol of the Communist party
leaders. Toohey pretends to represent the people, but is using their collective support as a means to self-empowerment.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 1:56:45 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:24:09 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 5:20:24 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:38:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Hmm... as a publisher, I foster creativity -- providing other poets with >>>> a forum in which to showcase their works.On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my >>>>> personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he >>>>> just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard >>>>> for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one >>>>> of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity. >>>>
Doesn't help; I'm sure that both Wynand and Toohey would have said they
were "fostering creativity." As a publisher, Wynand employed several
columnists who could write what they wanted -- unless they wrote
something he didn't like, in which case he'd "ban" (fire) them. That
last sounds like you. While Toohey's war on independent thought and
creativity was to assemble a collective of mediocre talents and promote
the hell out of them. That also sounds like you.
I'm afraid the question is still unresolved, and you haven't done a
thing to help resolve it.
You are devaluing Wynand. Wynand's motivations were originally noble
(in Ayn Rand's view), but he became corrupted (or, rather, compromised)
over time. Once having established a position of wealth and power, he
wanted to hold onto it, and was willing to compromise his ethics in
order to do so.
Wyand's motivations were never "noble". He was a Neitzschean, whose only motivation was power; he wanted to "run things." Not power to do
anything, but simply power in itself; while his newspaper ran periodic "crusades" (like the one to destroy Roark), Wynand himself didn't care
about them. While he did have some things he valued in his private life,
he kept that strictly hidden away. they did not motivate his public
life; and there is no indication in the book that he had any ethics at
all.
This is opposed to Roark, who is willing to risk
everything he owns, and all of the progress he has made in the hierarchy
of his chosen field, to be true to his personal values.
The difference between them is not whether they were true to their
values, but what values they were true to. Roark valued creativity,
doing things; Wynand valued having power, "running things" and the
people who did them.
Wynand redeems himself later in the novel, and is last seen having
returned to his original, Ubermenschian self.
Yes, that part of the story has a happy ending; Wynand "redeems" himself
by shutting down the Banner, giving up his quest for power over others.
As you know, Rand began writing /The Fountainhead/ as a Nietzchean, and finished it as an Objectivist; and the story of Wynand symbolizes that transition.
Except for that happy ending, Wynand is the character that fits you
best. You're still stuck in that quest for power for its own sake.
Toohey, otoh, is a one-dimensional symbol of the Communist party
leaders. Toohey pretends to represent the people, but is using their
collective support as a means to self-empowerment.
No, that's wrong, too IMO. Toohey sincerely believed himself to be a
selfless servant of the people; his goal was not personal wealth or
power. Though, since you've been identified with Wynand, there is no
reason to discuss the other villains in the novel.
And that's enough for now. I have things to do.
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 19:31:19 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 1:56:45 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:24:09 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 5:20:24 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:38:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Hmm... as a publisher, I foster creativity -- providing other poets with >>>>> a forum in which to showcase their works.On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my >>>>>> personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he >>>>>> just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard >>>>>> for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one >>>>>> of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity. >>>>>
Doesn't help; I'm sure that both Wynand and Toohey would have said they >>>> were "fostering creativity." As a publisher, Wynand employed several
columnists who could write what they wanted -- unless they wrote
something he didn't like, in which case he'd "ban" (fire) them. That
last sounds like you. While Toohey's war on independent thought and
creativity was to assemble a collective of mediocre talents and promote >>>> the hell out of them. That also sounds like you.
I'm afraid the question is still unresolved, and you haven't done a
thing to help resolve it.
You are devaluing Wynand. Wynand's motivations were originally noble
(in Ayn Rand's view), but he became corrupted (or, rather, compromised)
over time. Once having established a position of wealth and power, he
wanted to hold onto it, and was willing to compromise his ethics in
order to do so.
Wyand's motivations were never "noble". He was a Neitzschean, whose only
motivation was power; he wanted to "run things." Not power to do
anything, but simply power in itself; while his newspaper ran periodic
"crusades" (like the one to destroy Roark), Wynand himself didn't care
about them. While he did have some things he valued in his private life,
he kept that strictly hidden away. they did not motivate his public
life; and there is no indication in the book that he had any ethics at
all.
Hmm...
I just rewatched the movie a year or so ago, and so am more familiar
with that version of Wynand.
I just googled "gail wynand character overview" to see if you the book version was different, and here's the first result that came up:
"Like Roark, Wynand has extraordinary capabilities and energy, but
unlike Roark he lets the world corrupt him. When we first meet Wynand,
he is entirely a man of the outside world, exclusively involved with
society and its interests. His youthful idealism has been crushed by the world's cynicism."
That's pretty close to my description of him above.
Perhaps you're due for a "refresher" read of Rand's book.
This is opposed to Roark, who is willing to risk
everything he owns, and all of the progress he has made in the hierarchy >>> of his chosen field, to be true to his personal values.
The difference between them is not whether they were true to their
values, but what values they were true to. Roark valued creativity,
doing things; Wynand valued having power, "running things" and the
people who did them.
Again, that was not my reading (which the internet interpretation
confirms).
You don't seem to be getting the full picture of Wynand's character --
but then you *always* recast everything in the simplest of
black-and-white terms.
Wynand redeems himself later in the novel, and is last seen having
returned to his original, Ubermenschian self.
Yes, that part of the story has a happy ending; Wynand "redeems" himself
by shutting down the Banner, giving up his quest for power over others.
As you know, Rand began writing /The Fountainhead/ as a Nietzchean, and
finished it as an Objectivist; and the story of Wynand symbolizes that
transition.
Except for that happy ending, Wynand is the character that fits you
best. You're still stuck in that quest for power for its own sake.
Just because Rand modified her ideology a bit, doesn't mean that she
recast Wynand as a one-dimensional representation of something bad.
Roark has always struck me (and pretty much everyone else who's ever
read the book) as being the poster boy for the Nietzschean Ubermensch.
Wynand was an Ubermensch who *compromised* his principles in order to maintain his wealth and power. He wasn't representing the Nietzschean
ideal -- he was representing the *failure* of it. Roark, otoh,
represented a successful incarnation of that same ideal. He was
ultimately successful because he refused to compromise his ethics for success, wealth, and fame.
Toohey, otoh, is a one-dimensional symbol of the Communist party
leaders. Toohey pretends to represent the people, but is using their
collective support as a means to self-empowerment.
No, that's wrong, too IMO. Toohey sincerely believed himself to be a
selfless servant of the people; his goal was not personal wealth or
power. Though, since you've been identified with Wynand, there is no
reason to discuss the other villains in the novel.
And that's enough for now. I have things to do.
1) As noted above, Wynand is not a villain. He is a tragic figure (a
failed Ubermensch), until the novel's end wherein he is redeemed.
2) I just googled Toohey, and here's what Sparknotes has to say: "His
tactics frequently evoke those of Joseph Stalin, the former Russian revolutionary who emerged as Russia's dictator."
You really don't get Ayn Rand, George. I find this revelation most disheartening, as you claim to have read and studied all of her works.
To have missed her messages on pretty much every level imaginable, is... well, it would be comparable to how I would feel if I found out that I'd spent the past 40-odd years having misunderstood everything written by
Edgar Poe.
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 19:31:19 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 1:56:45 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:24:09 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 5:20:24 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:38:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Hmm... as a publisher, I foster creativity -- providing other poets with >>>>> a forum in which to showcase their works.On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my >>>>>> personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he >>>>>> just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard >>>>>> for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one >>>>>> of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity. >>>>>
Doesn't help; I'm sure that both Wynand and Toohey would have said they >>>> were "fostering creativity." As a publisher, Wynand employed several
columnists who could write what they wanted -- unless they wrote
something he didn't like, in which case he'd "ban" (fire) them. That
last sounds like you. While Toohey's war on independent thought and
creativity was to assemble a collective of mediocre talents and promote >>>> the hell out of them. That also sounds like you.
I'm afraid the question is still unresolved, and you haven't done a
thing to help resolve it.
You are devaluing Wynand. Wynand's motivations were originally noble
(in Ayn Rand's view), but he became corrupted (or, rather, compromised)
over time. Once having established a position of wealth and power, he
wanted to hold onto it, and was willing to compromise his ethics in
order to do so.
Wyand's motivations were never "noble". He was a Nietzschean, whose only
motivation was power; he wanted to "run things." Not power to do
anything, but simply power in itself; while his newspaper ran periodic
"crusades" (like the one to destroy Roark), Wynand himself didn't care
about them. While he did have some things he valued in his private life,
he kept that strictly hidden away. they did not motivate his public
life; and there is no indication in the book that he had any ethics at
all.
Hmm...
I just rewatched the movie a year or so ago, and so am more familiar
with that version of Wynand.
I just googled "gail wynand character overview" to see if you the book version was different, and here's the first result that came up:
"Like Roark, Wynand has extraordinary capabilities and energy, but
unlike Roark he lets the world corrupt him. When we first meet Wynand,
he is entirely a man of the outside world, exclusively involved with
society and its interests. His youthful idealism has been crushed by the world's cynicism."
That's pretty close to my description of him above.
Perhaps you're due for a "refresher" read of Rand's book.
This is opposed to Roark, who is willing to risk
everything he owns, and all of the progress he has made in the hierarchy >>> of his chosen field, to be true to his personal values.
The difference between them is not whether they were true to their
values, but what values they were true to. Roark valued creativity,
doing things; Wynand valued having power, "running things" and the
people who did them.
Again, that was not my reading (which the internet interpretation
confirms).
You don't seem to be getting the full picture of Wynand's character --
but then you *always* recast everything in the simplest of
black-and-white terms.
Wynand redeems himself later in the novel, and is last seen having
returned to his original, Ubermenschian self.
Yes, that part of the story has a happy ending; Wynand "redeems" himself
by shutting down the Banner, giving up his quest for power over others.
As you know, Rand began writing /The Fountainhead/ as a Nietzchean, and
finished it as an Objectivist; and the story of Wynand symbolizes that
transition.
Except for that happy ending, Wynand is the character that fits you
best. You're still stuck in that quest for power for its own sake.
Just because Rand modified her ideology a bit, doesn't mean that she
recast Wynand as a one-dimensional representation of something bad.
Roark has always struck me (and pretty much everyone else who's ever
read the book) as being the poster boy for the Nietzschean Ubermensch.
Wynand was an Ubermensch who *compromised* his principles in order to maintain his wealth and power.
He wasn't representing the Nietzschean
ideal -- he was representing the *failure* of it.
Roark, otoh,
represented a successful incarnation of that same ideal. He was
ultimately successful because he refused to compromise his ethics for success, wealth, and fame.
Toohey, otoh, is a one-dimensional symbol of the Communist party
leaders. Toohey pretends to represent the people, but is using their
collective support as a means to self-empowerment.
No, that's wrong, too IMO. Toohey sincerely believed himself to be a
selfless servant of the people; his goal was not personal wealth or
power. Though, since you've been identified with Wynand, there is no
reason to discuss the other villains in the novel.
1) As noted above, Wynand is not a villain. He is a tragic figure (a
failed Ubermensch)
, until the novel's end wherein he is redeemed.
2) I just googled Toohey, and here's what Sparknotes has to say: "His
tactics frequently evoke those of Joseph Stalin, the former Russian revolutionary who emerged as Russia's dictator."
You really don't get Ayn Rand, George. I find this revelation most disheartening, as you claim to have read and studied all of her works.
To have missed her messages on pretty much every level imaginable, is... well, it would be comparable to how I would feel if I found out that I'd spent the past 40-odd years having misunderstood everything written by
Edgar Poe.
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 20:25:03 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 19:31:19 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 1:56:45 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:24:09 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 5:20:24 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:38:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
Hmm... as a publisher, I foster creativity -- providing other poets with >>>>>> a forum in which to showcase their works.On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my >>>>>>> personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he >>>>>>> just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard >>>>>>> for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one >>>>>>> of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity. >>>>>>
Doesn't help; I'm sure that both Wynand and Toohey would have said they >>>>> were "fostering creativity." As a publisher, Wynand employed several >>>>> columnists who could write what they wanted -- unless they wrote
something he didn't like, in which case he'd "ban" (fire) them. That >>>>> last sounds like you. While Toohey's war on independent thought and
creativity was to assemble a collective of mediocre talents and promote >>>>> the hell out of them. That also sounds like you.
I'm afraid the question is still unresolved, and you haven't done a
thing to help resolve it.
You are devaluing Wynand. Wynand's motivations were originally noble
(in Ayn Rand's view), but he became corrupted (or, rather, compromised) >>>> over time. Once having established a position of wealth and power, he >>>> wanted to hold onto it, and was willing to compromise his ethics in
order to do so.
Wyand's motivations were never "noble". He was a Nietzschean, whose only >>> motivation was power; he wanted to "run things." Not power to do
anything, but simply power in itself; while his newspaper ran periodic
"crusades" (like the one to destroy Roark), Wynand himself didn't care
about them. While he did have some things he valued in his private life, >>> he kept that strictly hidden away. they did not motivate his public
life; and there is no indication in the book that he had any ethics at
all.
Hmm...
I just rewatched the movie a year or so ago, and so am more familiar
with that version of Wynand.
I just googled "gail wynand character overview" to see if you the book
version was different, and here's the first result that came up:
"Like Roark, Wynand has extraordinary capabilities and energy, but
unlike Roark he lets the world corrupt him. When we first meet Wynand,
he is entirely a man of the outside world, exclusively involved with
society and its interests. His youthful idealism has been crushed by the
world's cynicism."
That's pretty close to my description of him above.
I'm glad you're googling.
The only thing the descriptions have in common
is that they're sympathetic to Wynand (which makes sense, since Rand
made him a sympathetic character. The difference is that the analysis
pointe out that Wynand is thoroughly corrupt, while you insist on seeing
him as "noble" and having "principles" and "ethics" though there's no evidence of that. Like Toohey (and you) Wynand presents as exclusively a "creature of the outside world," without any visible self.
(Later we learn that he does have a self - symbolized by his private art gallery - but the world is never allowed to see it. Once he finally does
come public with him, he
Perhaps you're due for a "refresher" read of Rand's book.
Or perhaps I should watch the movie, or, even better, google. :)
This is opposed to Roark, who is willing to risk
everything he owns, and all of the progress he has made in the hierarchy >>>> of his chosen field, to be true to his personal values.
The difference between them is not whether they were true to their
values, but what values they were true to. Roark valued creativity,
doing things; Wynand valued having power, "running things" and the
people who did them.
Again, that was not my reading (which the internet interpretation
confirms).
No, the quote you googled does not confirm that. According to your
googled quote, Wynand was already thoroughly corrupted "by the time we
met him" in the novel.
You don't seem to be getting the full picture of Wynand's character --
but then you *always* recast everything in the simplest of
black-and-white terms.
I am getting that you identify with Wynand.
So it's fair for us to
identify you with him; the thoroughly corrupted power seeker - not
beyond redemption (since there probably is a real person under all those socks, and it may show itself one day) - but not redeemed at present.
Wynand redeems himself later in the novel, and is last seen having
returned to his original, Ubermenschian self.
Yes, that part of the story has a happy ending; Wynand "redeems" himself >>> by shutting down the Banner, giving up his quest for power over others.
As you know, Rand began writing /The Fountainhead/ as a Nietzchean, and
finished it as an Objectivist; and the story of Wynand symbolizes that
transition.
Except for that happy ending, Wynand is the character that fits you
best. You're still stuck in that quest for power for its own sake.
Just because Rand modified her ideology a bit, doesn't mean that she
recast Wynand as a one-dimensional representation of something bad.
I never said she had. Her only one-dimensional character is Toohey.
Roark has always struck me (and pretty much everyone else who's ever
read the book) as being the poster boy for the Nietzschean Ubermensch.
Not at all; Roark valued his own independence from others, and their own independence from him. Not only did he not try to control them; he
wouldn't even give them advice beyond "don't take advice, from me or
anyone" (paraphrased).
Wynand was an Ubermensch who *compromised* his principles in order to
maintain his wealth and power.
He began *compromising* his sense of life in grade school, long before
he would have developed any "principles". He was thoroughly compromised
(a nicer word than corrupted, if you prefer it) long before he had any
wealth and power.
He wasn't representing the Nietzschean
ideal -- he was representing the *failure* of it.
Roark, otoh,
represented a successful incarnation of that same ideal. He was
ultimately successful because he refused to compromise his ethics for
success, wealth, and fame.
That's not Nietzschean at all, as I've read him. Nietzche championed the
man with no ethics, the man who lived for power over others. Wynand was Rand's view of where that worldview ultimately led.
Toohey, otoh, is a one-dimensional symbol of the Communist party
leaders. Toohey pretends to represent the people, but is using their
collective support as a means to self-empowerment.
No, that's wrong, too IMO. Toohey sincerely believed himself to be a
selfless servant of the people; his goal was not personal wealth or
power. Though, since you've been identified with Wynand, there is no
reason to discuss the other villains in the novel.
1) As noted above, Wynand is not a villain. He is a tragic figure (a
failed Ubermensch)
No, as the tycoon of incalculable wealth and power, Wynand was
Neitzche's Ubermensch come to life.
, until the novel's end wherein he is redeemed.
2) I just googled Toohey, and here's what Sparknotes has to say: "His
tactics frequently evoke those of Joseph Stalin, the former Russian
revolutionary who emerged as Russia's dictator."
Exactly. Both Toohey and Stalin were selfless servants of the people -
they had no interests of their own, but dedicated their lives to the
people. All they wanted in return was total control - not for
themselves, but for the people.
Toohey was the completely selfless man - the man who wanted nothing for himself, but only wanted the public good; and therefore wanted to break everyone who maintained a private life, or a sense of self.
You really don't get Ayn Rand, George. I find this revelation most
disheartening, as you claim to have read and studied all of her works.
To have missed her messages on pretty much every level imaginable, is...
well, it would be comparable to how I would feel if I found out that I'd
spent the past 40-odd years having misunderstood everything written by
Edgar Poe.
I understand her just fine. I'd say that you were the one who
misunderstands her, but (considering I'm not talking to a person but a
sock) one knows where that would lead: You'd put your hands over your
ears, stamp your little foot, and cry "IKYABWAI!" again.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 15:29:48 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 11:47:59 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 20:25:03 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 19:31:19 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 1:56:45 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain aka
"HarryLime" wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:24:09 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 5:20:24 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 23:38:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:For now I think of him as the Toohey type, but that could just be my >>>>>>>>> personal bias. The difference being that: Wynand was a Nietzschean; he
just wanted the power to control reality for itself, without any regard
for how it was used; while Toohey did have an agenda, a malevolent one
of stamping out and destroying all independent thought and creativity.
Hmm... as a publisher, I foster creativity -- providing other poets with
a forum in which to showcase their works.
Doesn't help; I'm sure that both Wynand and Toohey would have said they >>>>>>> were "fostering creativity." As a publisher, Wynand employed several >>>>>>> columnists who could write what they wanted -- unless they wrote >>>>>>> something he didn't like, in which case he'd "ban" (fire) them. That >>>>>>> last sounds like you. While Toohey's war on independent thought and >>>>>>> creativity was to assemble a collective of mediocre talents and promote >>>>>>> the hell out of them. That also sounds like you.
I'm afraid the question is still unresolved, and you haven't done a >>>>>>> thing to help resolve it.
You are devaluing Wynand. Wynand's motivations were originally noble >>>>>> (in Ayn Rand's view), but he became corrupted (or, rather, compromised) >>>>>> over time. Once having established a position of wealth and power, he >>>>>> wanted to hold onto it, and was willing to compromise his ethics in >>>>>> order to do so.
Wyand's motivations were never "noble". He was a Nietzschean, whose only >>>>> motivation was power; he wanted to "run things." Not power to do
anything, but simply power in itself; while his newspaper ran periodic >>>>> "crusades" (like the one to destroy Roark), Wynand himself didn't care >>>>> about them. While he did have some things he valued in his private life, >>>>> he kept that strictly hidden away. they did not motivate his public
life; and there is no indication in the book that he had any ethics at >>>>> all.
Hmm...
I just rewatched the movie a year or so ago, and so am more familiar
with that version of Wynand.
I just googled "gail wynand character overview" to see if you the book >>>> version was different, and here's the first result that came up:
"Like Roark, Wynand has extraordinary capabilities and energy, but
unlike Roark he lets the world corrupt him. When we first meet Wynand, >>>> he is entirely a man of the outside world, exclusively involved with
society and its interests. His youthful idealism has been crushed by the >>>> world's cynicism."
That's pretty close to my description of him above.
I'm glad you're googling.
Of course I am.
If I'm presented with information that conflicts with my current
understanding of a given topic, I fact check/research to determine
whether the new information or my current understanding is incorrect.
The only thing the descriptions have in common
is that they're sympathetic to Wynand (which makes sense, since Rand
made him a sympathetic character. The difference is that the analysis
pointe out that Wynand is thoroughly corrupt, while you insist on seeing >>> him as "noble" and having "principles" and "ethics" though there's no
evidence of that. Like Toohey (and you) Wynand presents as exclusively a >>> "creature of the outside world," without any visible self.
I suggest that you reread the analysis. It says that "His youthful
idealism has been crushed by the world's cynicism." Generally, one's
youthful idealism is a pure representation of their basic values -- it's
who they see themselves as (often in an overly idealized or romanticized
form). This is the nobility at the heart of Gail Wynand -- much as Sir
Galahad represents the youthful, untainted nobility of Dorian Gray.
When examining The Fountainhead, one should also bear in mind that the
protagonist of the book is Dominique Francon (a literary stand-in for
Rand), and that Francon/Rand would not be married to a man who had no
redeeming characteristics.
(Later we learn that he does have a self - symbolized by his private art >>> gallery - but the world is never allowed to see it. Once he finally does >>> come public with him, he
You've broken off in mid-sentence again, George. I'm therefore unable
to determine what point you were attempting to make.
Wynand was inspired by William Randolph Hearst, who was also the
inspiration for Citizen Kane -- and the similarities between Wynand and
Kane are so strong that they might as well be the same character (which
they, in fact are; both having been based on the same real life person.)
Kane's youthful idealism (which is also corrupted over the course of
his life) was expressed in his newspaper's manifesto, which promised to
provide the public with an honest daily newspaper,
to use the press to expose corruption in government, business, and
politics;
to be a champion for the rights of citizens and human beings; and to
campaign for the poor and underprivileged.
Wynand/Hearst/Kane all share the same noble principles, and all equally
fall victim to corruption -- with Wynand alone finding redemption.
Perhaps you're due for a "refresher" read of Rand's book.
Or perhaps I should watch the movie, or, even better, google. :)
Don't snigger too much about the movie, George. The screenplay was
written by Ayn Rand, who also oversaw the film's production, and whose
contract stipulated that not one word of her screenplay could be altered
or removed. IOW: The film version is just as much Ayn Rand's vision as
is the book upon which it was based. Arguably, it is even moreso, as
any differences from the book would represent changes in Rand's
perceptions/beliefs.
This is opposed to Roark, who is willing to risk
everything he owns, and all of the progress he has made in the hierarchy >>>>>> of his chosen field, to be true to his personal values.
The difference between them is not whether they were true to their
values, but what values they were true to. Roark valued creativity,
doing things; Wynand valued having power, "running things" and the
people who did them.
Again, that was not my reading (which the internet interpretation
confirms).
No, the quote you googled does not confirm that. According to your
googled quote, Wynand was already thoroughly corrupted "by the time we
met him" in the novel.
LOL! Is that what you're harping on?
His past is part of his character. You can't dismiss a character's
backstory just because it happens outside of the narrative's timeframe.
As you're a writer, I can't believe that I'm having to explain this to
you.
You don't seem to be getting the full picture of Wynand's character -- >>>> but then you *always* recast everything in the simplest of
black-and-white terms.
I am getting that you identify with Wynand.
And, once again, you're mistaken.
You should really stop trying to read things into my statements. I
choose my words carefully, and say exactly what I mean.
I do not identify with Wynand in the least. Wynand is everything that I
am not: rich, self-made, successful, powerful, dependent upon public
acceptance, and willing to compromise his ideals.
I do, however, *understand* the fictional character better than you, as
your understanding of both Rand and Nietzsche is faulty, and you seem
incapable of grasping any concept in its full complexity, having to
pigeonhole it into simplistic, black and white components that often
undermine its original intent.
So it's fair for us to
identify you with him; the thoroughly corrupted power seeker - not
beyond redemption (since there probably is a real person under all those >>> socks, and it may show itself one day) - but not redeemed at present.
Wrong again.
1) Whether I'm corrupted is a moot point as my basic ideals (youthful
and present day) stem from a Luciferic belief system (similar to those
of both Nietzsche and Rand). Since, in such a system, "Good" and "Evil"
are seen as relative to the individual, words like "corrupted" become
meaningless. Unless you want to argue that one could become "corrupted"
into accepting the standards of conventional morality.
2) I am not a power seeker, insofar as I do not actively seek to become
empowered. I believe that I would make the ideal Philosopher Prince (as
per Machiavelli) or Philosopher King (as per Plato), and believe that
the world would only benefit from my leadership... but that is purely a
matter of speculative masturbation. I am content to remain a working
class peon in society, and to devote my writing to exploring the eternal
truths of one's inner soul.
3) Since there is no difference between any of my so-called "socks"
(apart from their names), the "real person" is not hidden underneath
them in any way.
In Marginalia 194:1,2, Poe wrote that:
"If any ambitious man have a fancy to revolutionize, at one effort, the
universal world of human thought, human opinion, and human sentiment,
the opportunity is his own — the road to immortal renown lies straight,
open, and unencumbered before him. All that he has to do is to write and
publish a very little book. Its title should be simple — a few plain
words — “My Heart Laid Bare.” But — this little book must be true to its
title.
"Now, is it not very singular that, with the rabid thirst for notoriety
which distinguishes so many of mankind — so many, too, who care not a
fig what is thought of them after death, there should not be found one
man having sufficient hardihood to write this little book? To write, I
say. There are ten thousand men who, if the book were once written,
would laugh at the notion of being disturbed by its publication during
their life, and who could not even conceive why they should object to
its being published after their death. But to write it — there is the
rub. No man dare write it. No man ever will dare write it. No man could
write it, even if he dared. The paper would shrivel and blaze at every
touch of the fiery pen."
I chose, while still in my idealistic youth, to become the man who would
dare to write that book. But it isn't limited to a single publication.
It runs through my collected works of poetry, fiction, drama, and
philosophy. But it doesn't stop there. It is present in all of my
ephemeral social media posts, personal letters, and everyday
conversations. In short: to write the book, one must *become* the book.
My heart must be worn upon my sleeve for all the world to see -- i.e.,
it must be perpetually "laid bare."
You, however, will never see the "real person" for want of the imaginary
socks. A real person is too complex, multi-layered, and even
self-contradictory a concept for your black & white mind to comprehend.
Even your Donkey has demonstrated a better understanding of the
complexity of human life than you.
Wynand redeems himself later in the novel, and is last seen having >>>>>> returned to his original, Ubermenschian self.
Yes, that part of the story has a happy ending; Wynand "redeems" himself >>>>> by shutting down the Banner, giving up his quest for power over others. >>>>> As you know, Rand began writing /The Fountainhead/ as a Nietzchean, and >>>>> finished it as an Objectivist; and the story of Wynand symbolizes that >>>>> transition.
Except for that happy ending, Wynand is the character that fits you
best. You're still stuck in that quest for power for its own sake.
Just because Rand modified her ideology a bit, doesn't mean that she
recast Wynand as a one-dimensional representation of something bad.
I never said she had. Her only one-dimensional character is Toohey.
Roark is one-dimensional as well; and none of her characters ever reach
beyond two dimensions. They are, after all, merely devices for
expressing her philosophical ideas. The closest she comes to a
three-dimensional character is with Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged.
Roark has always struck me (and pretty much everyone else who's ever
read the book) as being the poster boy for the Nietzschean Ubermensch.
Not at all; Roark valued his own independence from others, and their own >>> independence from him. Not only did he not try to control them; he
wouldn't even give them advice beyond "don't take advice, from me or
anyone" (paraphrased).
You are a victim of the popular misconception that Nietzsche was about
power and dominance -- which shows me that you've never read any of his
works. Nietzsche's one fictional character was Zarathustra -- a hermit
(inspired by the ancient Persian founder of Zoroastrianism) who lived in
the wilderness on top of a mountain. Zarathustra serves as a mouthpiece
for Nietzsche's philosophy, and can be seen in that regard as a
representation of himself. A hermit is hardly an image for one seeking
power and domination to adopt.
The confusion rises from Nietzsche's association with Nazi Germany (or,
rather, Nazi Germany's predilection for using Nietzsche's quotes out of
context to serve their on nefarious ends), and his use of words like
"Overman" and "Will to Power." We can dismiss the Nazi associations, as
Nietzsche would have detested the Nazis and was outspoken against
anti-Semitism in general. "Overman" referred to a higher form of
existence (a new evolutionary step in the progression of humankind), not
some sort of overlord; and "Will to Power" referred to Schopenhauer's
"World as Will" which had nothing whatsoever to do with earthly power.
Nietzsche's philosophy was borrowed lock, stock and barrel from
Schopenhauer (just as Rand's Objectivist philosophy was borrowed lock,
stock and barrel from Nietzsche). Nietzsche recast Schopenhauer's
beliefs (whose write in a dull, ponderous style) as sharp-witted, often
satirical, and highly quotable sayings which found a lasting interest
with the reading public; and Rand turned Nietzsche's distillation of
Schopenhauer into popular novels. But Schopenhaurean philosophy is at
the bottom of Nietzsche of both.
"Will" in Schopenhauer, is one of the two basic laws of nature upon
which all other natural laws are based -- i.e., the propensity for
matter to accumulate other matter unto itself. Nietzsche applies this
law to humans, and concludes that we are equally compelled to achieve
our highest potential. In other words -- we are all driven to seek out
means of growing as human beings (self-awareness, self-improvement,
Jungian Individuation, etc.). *That* and that alone is all that
Nietzsche's "Will to Power" constitutes.
Wynand was an Ubermensch who *compromised* his principles in order to
maintain his wealth and power.
He began *compromising* his sense of life in grade school, long before
he would have developed any "principles". He was thoroughly compromised
(a nicer word than corrupted, if you prefer it) long before he had any
wealth and power.
Does Rand write this, or is it a supposition on your part?
I'm asking (as opposed to posing a rhetorical question), as it's been
roughly 35 years since I read The Fountainhead, and I don't remember any
mention of Wynand's school days in it. As a Hearst/Kane representation,
I would assume that Wynand started out in publishing with his own
Manifesto which would have contained similar points to Kane's. And,
while this might be a conflation of memories on my part, I seem to
recall Wynand telling either Roark or Dominique that he had started out
with high ideals, but was compelled to compromise them. This revelation
would take place in conjunction with his paper's idealistic (and
self-destructive) support of Roark.
Not that the actual dates/events that compromised the innate nobility of
Wynand's character matter. The end result remains the same.
He wasn't representing the Nietzschean
ideal -- he was representing the *failure* of it.
Roark, otoh,
represented a successful incarnation of that same ideal. He was
ultimately successful because he refused to compromise his ethics for
success, wealth, and fame.
That's not Nietzschean at all, as I've read him. Nietzche championed the >>> man with no ethics, the man who lived for power over others. Wynand was
Rand's view of where that worldview ultimately led.
Again, your misunderstanding of Nietzsche borders on character
assassination and libel. I have already discussed the misconception
that Nietzsche had any interest in the attainment of earthly power
("Will to Power" was about achieving one's potential); I shall now
proceed to dismiss the charges that he espoused a rejection of ethics.
Nietzsche wrote that humans are "beyond good and evil." By this, he
meant that "Good" and "Evil" are relative to the individual, as opposed
to being Platonic Ideals whose characteristics are set in stone.
While this view negates the Christian concept of morality, it does not
entail that one should live without ethics as a consequence. Rather we
are each supposed to develop our own ethical beliefs based on our unique
understanding of ourselves and our relation to the world at large. IOW:
No one can proclaim any ideal to be universally "good" or "evil." We
each have to decide for ourselves -- and whatever we decide with be the
correct answer for us. Roark (the embodiment of Nietzschean philosophy)
had an ethical code which justified his raping Dominique, and blowing up
an apartment building. Not everyone would agree with such an ethical
code, but for Roark, he was acting ethically in both instances.
Toohey, otoh, is a one-dimensional symbol of the Communist party
leaders. Toohey pretends to represent the people, but is using their >>>>>> collective support as a means to self-empowerment.
No, that's wrong, too IMO. Toohey sincerely believed himself to be a >>>>> selfless servant of the people; his goal was not personal wealth or
power. Though, since you've been identified with Wynand, there is no >>>>> reason to discuss the other villains in the novel.
1) As noted above, Wynand is not a villain. He is a tragic figure (a
failed Ubermensch)
No, as the tycoon of incalculable wealth and power, Wynand was
Neitzche's Ubermensch come to life.
That is the opposite of an Ubermensch. The Ubermensch, or Overman, was
a higher evolutionary form that humans are driven (by the Will to Power)
to strive for, but which had not yet been attained. The Overman would
be so much more highly developed than present day humans, that we would
be incapable of perceiving what such a higher form would be. The idea
is similar to saying that we use only 10% of our brain, and that were we
capable of using it all, we could do virtually anything. The Overman is
the self-actuated individual taken to the nth degree.
Not only would the Nietzschean ideal of the Ubermensch *not* be
dominating other people, but *all* of the other people would either be
fellow Overmen, or on the road to becoming fellow Overmen. Nietzsche
would be rolling over in his grave to think that his Ubermensch could be
so misrepresented (as seeking wealth and power) as you have done above.
FWIW: I have read the complete (or nearly complete) works of both Rand
and Nietzsche, and profess to have at least a basic understanding of
their philosophy. You used the phrase "as I've read him" regarding
Nietzsche (above). I cannot believe that you have actually read
Nietzsche at all based on your skewed (to put it mildly) perceptions
regarding his views. Perhaps you've read a few excerpts, or equally
ill-conceived passages *about* his views; but I can assure you that what
you've been calling "Nietzschean" here is nothing of the sort.
, until the novel's end wherein he is redeemed.
2) I just googled Toohey, and here's what Sparknotes has to say: "His
tactics frequently evoke those of Joseph Stalin, the former Russian
revolutionary who emerged as Russia's dictator."
Exactly. Both Toohey and Stalin were selfless servants of the people -
they had no interests of their own, but dedicated their lives to the
people. All they wanted in return was total control - not for
themselves, but for the people.
I disagree. They used the people as an excuse to gain power for
themselves.
Toohey was the completely selfless man - the man who wanted nothing for
himself, but only wanted the public good; and therefore wanted to break
everyone who maintained a private life, or a sense of self.
Toohey was a spider. He spun pretty webs to catch flies in. But as the
flies eventually found out, the pretty webs weren't to their good at
all.
Toohey knows that he has nothing to offer the world. He has no talents,
not profound thoughts, no... anything. He therefore hates men like
Wynand -- self-made movers and shakers who are *actually* bent on
reshaping society for the betterment of all. Wynand is who Toohey would
like to be -- but cannot.
Toohey was inspired by Stalin, but from a literary standpoint, he is the
grandson of Uriah Heep. He has learned how to flatter the public by
constantly telling them how "humble" he is, and by explaining to them
how he is happy to be their servant and has only their best interest at
heart. But just a Mr. Heep was using his "humility" to gain control Mr.
Wickfield and his fortune, so Ellsworth Toohey is using his professed
altruism to gain the support of the masses in his bid for social power.
Ellsworth Toohey was the "voice of the people" as he liked to remind everyone.
I understand (Ayn Rand) just fine. I'd say that you were the one who
misunderstands her, but (considering I'm not talking to a person but a
sock) one knows where that would lead: You'd put your hands over your
ears, stamp your little foot, and cry "IKYABWAI!" again.
I beg to differ
As usual, nobody expects you to admit it.
Zarathustra (Nietzsche) said that Man was halfway along
the bridge between Animal and Overman (and that even the Overman state
was only the beginning of our journey). Roark was farther advanced
along that bridge than anyone else at that time. Roark represented the
Nietzschean ideal.
--
Howard Roarke taught us to create our art and stand with it, don't let
the work be changed, either tacked on or watered them. Howard Roarke
wasn't afraid to blow it up, watch his creation go down in flames rather
than see it changed from his original vision.
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 18:03:43 +0000, MummyChunk wrote:
Will-Dockery wrote:https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=254114&group=alt.arts.poe >> try.comments#254114
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 4:07:04 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
moved from
Pendragon"
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 0:20:56 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
That's Michael Pendragon, always the Peter Keating styled second hander. >>>>
Essentially we're in agreement; but I have to raise two non-essential
points of disagreement. First, I would rather not refer to the subject >>>> as "Pendragon." The subject's real name is unknown; "Michael
course, ifis just one of his socks, albeit the most prolific one. I would prefer >>>> to refer to him as "MMP" (which doesn't mean you have to, of
"consensus"you disagree).
Second, I don't think that Peter Keating is the best 'type' to describe >>>> MMP in the novel. Both Keating and MMP are social metaphysicians - they >>>> think that reality is whatever people believe it is, the
view of reality. But so do half the novel. Where those two are different >>>> is that Keating is content to follow the consensus, while MMP believes >>>> he can actually control reality by controlling others' beliefs. ThatHe sure can trigger you, donkey.
makes him more like two of Rand's other protagonists from that novel,
Gail Wynand and Ellsworth Toohey. Which of those matches him best is
still an open question.
Why does Michael Pendragon lie and misrepresent so much?
MMP has told us he was abused as a boy, and I think that fact is key.
Lying is one tactic children usually try at some point to escape
punishment, and an abused child has all the more reason to keep at it ad >>>> learn how to do it successfully. Since MMP comes across as clever (at
least 120 IQ), it is also fair to think that he was able to learn to lie >>>> successfully. So it is fair to conclude that he did learn to lie
successfully, and escape punishment, more than once.
While no one can blame a child in that position for lying, his doing so >>>> successfully would be giving him the wrong feedback, making him think
that he actually was changing reality by changing his parents' beliefs - >>>> telling him that in fact reality was whatever one wanted it to be, and >>>> that he could be that one.
More later, but I wanted to get these two points on record quickly.
Here it is, lest we forget.
Pendragon, the little green monkey, revealed.
😏
Not really, Rudy.
😏
No one should ever get triggered by someone on the internet. We are all
stronger than that I think....
This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=682126454#682126454
Again, agreed.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:44:10 |
| Calls: | 9,783 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,748 |
| Messages: | 6,187,342 |