Ayn Rand Sez 'Sez'

[Elliot Temple]

from "The Chickens’ Homecoming" in return of the primitive:

> The original resolution was more honest than the amended one, and more philosophical: it stated its theoretical base. That base (Marxism) is false as hell, but its very falsehood defeats it and works to protect the unwary: when people know the theoretical grounds of any given stand, they are able to check it, to judge and to decide whether they agree or not. To name one’s principles is to open one’s declarations to serious critical appraisal. But the evasion of theory, the enunciation of arbitrary inexplicable pronouncements, is an act of destruction that no Marxist theories could match: it destroys epistemology. It undercuts the principles of rationality, invalidates the processes of a civilized discussion, discards logic and replaces it with the “Sez you—Sez I” method of communication—which the campus activists are using to great advantage.

"false as hell" and "sez". what a casual style paragraph, but serious substance. published in a book.

if Rand can do it, why shouldn't the rest of us?

i don't think the rules of how to sound serious have much to do with how to communicate serious ideas. so why follow them?

are Rand and I missing anything? most people seem to disagree but i don't see the mistake.

it's true that if you write casual style or form then lots of idiots and fools will disregard what you say. but so what?

-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/

[ano...@yahoo.com]

On Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:03:52 AM UTC, Elliot Temple wrote:

from "The Chickens’ Homecoming" in return of the primitive:

>         The original resolution was more honest than the amended one, and more philosophical: it stated its theoretical base. That base (Marxism) is false as hell, but its very falsehood defeats it and works to protect the unwary: when people know the theoretical grounds of any given stand, they are able to check it, to judge and to decide whether they agree or not. To name one’s principles is to open one’s declarations to serious critical appraisal. But the evasion of theory, the enunciation of arbitrary inexplicable pronouncements, is an act of destruction that no Marxist theories could match: it destroys epistemology. It undercuts the principles of rationality, invalidates the processes of a civilized discussion, discards logic and replaces it with the “Sez you—Sez I” method of communication—which the campus activists are using to great advantage.

"false as hell" and "sez". what a casual style paragraph, but serious substance. published in a book.

When she uses "sez" isn't she doing it to mock people she doesn't respect?

 

if Rand can do it, why shouldn't the rest of us?

i don't think the rules of how to sound serious have much to do with how to communicate serious ideas. so why follow them?

are Rand and I missing anything? most people seem to disagree but i don't see the mistake.

it's true that if you write casual style or form then lots of idiots and fools will disregard what you say. but so what?

I think the more casual the language the better for understanding. I'm not sure about not caring to use capitals. It doesn't put me off from reading your stuff but I otherwise associate it too much with lazy people and I can't write like that myself.

[Rami Rustom]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 7:31 AM, <ano...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, March 30, 2013 9:03:52 AM UTC, Elliot Temple wrote:
>>
>> from "The Chickens’ Homecoming" in return of the primitive:
>>
>> > The original resolution was more honest than the amended one,
>> > and more philosophical: it stated its theoretical base. That base (Marxism)
>> > is false as hell, but its very falsehood defeats it and works to protect the
>> > unwary: when people know the theoretical grounds of any given stand, they
>> > are able to check it, to judge and to decide whether they agree or not. To
>> > name one’s principles is to open one’s declarations to serious critical
>> > appraisal. But the evasion of theory, the enunciation of arbitrary
>> > inexplicable pronouncements, is an act of destruction that no Marxist
>> > theories could match: it destroys epistemology. It undercuts the principles
>> > of rationality, invalidates the processes of a civilized discussion,
>> > discards logic and replaces it with the “Sez you—Sez I” method of
>> > communication—which the campus activists are using to great advantage.
>>
>> "false as hell" and "sez". what a casual style paragraph, but serious
>> substance. published in a book.
>
>
> When she uses "sez" isn't she doing it to mock people she doesn't respect?

I think so.

>>
>> if Rand can do it, why shouldn't the rest of us?
>>
>> i don't think the rules of how to sound serious have much to do with how
>> to communicate serious ideas. so why follow them?
>>
>> are Rand and I missing anything? most people seem to disagree but i don't
>> see the mistake.
>>
>> it's true that if you write casual style or form then lots of idiots and
>> fools will disregard what you say. but so what?
>
>
> I think the more casual the language the better for understanding. I'm not
> sure about not caring to use capitals. It doesn't put me off from reading
> your stuff but I otherwise associate it too much with lazy people

Why? Lazy people can be identified by the laziness in their ideas.
Using capitals is superficial, like "dressing for success" is
superficial.

> and I
> can't write like that myself.

Yes you can. And you choose not to. You have a feeling about it and
you're honoring the feeling. But the feeling is wrong, and I think you
know it. Which raises the question: Will you try to change the feeling
to be consistent with your judgement? Or will you honor your feeling
as the truth and not try at all to change it?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com

[Anon Too]

I see your point about being bad to dress up one's writing. But I still think that capitals facilitate reading. I'm also not comfortable imitating someone else's writing style. I rather stick to the writing tradition.

>> and I
>> can't write like that myself.
>
> Yes you can. And you choose not to.

That's right. I chose not to. I should drop the "can'ts" from my thinking and become more responsible.

> You have a feeling about it and
> you're honoring the feeling. But the feeling is wrong, and I think you
> know it. Which raises the question: Will you try to change the feeling
> to be consistent with your judgement? Or will you honor your feeling
> as the truth and not try at all to change it?

My feeling should be consistent with my judgement and I should honor my judgement, but I'm not sure yet if my hesitation is just a feeling and my judgement at this point is just: it's fine when Elliot does it.

[Elliot Temple]

so, Rami is telling Anon Too to use lowercase. but note that Rami's post uses capitals.

rami pays attention to how others write, but not himself?

rami writes "Using capitals is superficial" with a capital 'U'. is Rami telling us he's superficial?

and is he claiming i'm superficial? I used capital letters for 'OK' and some other places.

this sort of lack of self awareness and contradictions in one's thinking is important.

btw note that what i talked about was casual writing, not omitting capital letters. i think if all your writing is formal and stuffy that is a serious flaw but just using some capital letters may be no big deal. (depends on motivation i suppose)

also i'm kinda inconsistent about capitalization. that better fits the theme of casual writing than of any particular capitalization rules.

[Elliot Temple]

oh also, regarding readability, capital letters may have more value when your sentences and paragraphs are too long. and when your paragraphs don't have blank lines between them (just a tab to begin each like in print books).


-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/