A taste:
I note that I well understand the concerns that prompt IOZ's question, "why must you call yourselves anything at all?" -- which is in part why I always offer an explanation, however brief, as to precisely what I mean by the terms I employ, excepting only those contexts in which the meaning should be obvious. But using terms such as those I utilize here and in the above excerpts is not only useful, but unavoidable. We do, in fact, live in a particular culture at a particular time. All terms, including those of political self-description, have associations and meanings, even when they are vague and approximate, or represent even dubious connections. That is why it behooves us to explain what we mean when we use them. In the political context, we are building on thought which has evolved over hundreds, even thousands, of years. In significant part, we thus formulate our views in response to how those ideas have altered over time, as well as to how societies have changed. And when we conclude it is necessary or desirable, we reshape those ideas and their associated terms to our own ends, and/or we alter the terms we employ as required.I enjoy the meticulous way he sets up his arguments whether I agree with him or not. (Also, a day or so ago, he had a clip of Noel Coward doing a song with which I was unfamiliar.)
2 comments:
I was introduced to someone's girlfriend the other day as a "Catholic communist hippie"... and I thought, hey, that's pretty good, I've never even offered him any prompts...I must -radiate- it.
But its like he also meant her to filter anything I said through those lenses.
BTW, that piece has reminded me that blogging about Ayn Rand would be FUN...of course, I would be focusing on the gossip, Nathaniel and Barbara Brandon's books, in particular. That shit is WILD! She was a somewhat demanding paramour, as you might imagine. She actually acted like a MALE cult leader, and periodically "summoned" guys she liked in the same manner. (giggle) A fascinating woman, indeed. Her ideas sucked, though. She and William F Buckley fought over religion, which is in one of his books, too.
Us scandalmongers enjoy the BACKSTORY! :D
I'd have to gird my loins first though, I imagine the trolling of such a thread would be intense.
(PS: You know you have higher traffic when you start to think about the repercussions of your posts... I used to write anything I wanted and nobody noticed. And now, the shit can rain down before I've even edited the links in.)
I can't help it; after the sorts of things modern "gossipmongers" consider gossip-worthy, one craves dirt. I have Barbara Brandon's book around here somewhere and read it years ago, going "Uh-huh" a lot. (An ex had copies of the newsletter in the '70s, so I'd actually heard some of the backstory.)
And of course you can always do the Richard Bachman pseudonymous thing--the Net makes that easy. (Time constraints are a different thing, unfortunately.)
Hmmmmmm. Thinking cap ON.
Post a Comment