Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: George J. Dance@novabbs.com (George J. Dance)
Newsgroups: alt.arts.poetry.comments,rec.arts.poems
Subject: Re: The Psycho-epistemolgy of MMP
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 23:24:12 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <64c658dc4e9f4988e0880f08531ca469@www.novabbs.com>
References: <3410e67b167ee373e49c66f99f295981@www.novabbs.com> <d5fffe0b8562f2f7f4c8e0b985d90146@www.novabbs.com> <bb5fd0750e61f0a707c85743147ce6f2@www.novabbs.com> <1177479458636a309cde2ff0e472d0b3@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2249532"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="8+dz2rsm3jrbG2zIijE9ZpD7dtD/aCelSs77CawmFcg";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Posting-User: da88b0d4e721c88c814af4f3bade12e63975cfc7
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$rLDZEHjypK1W8TxL4y1iROVZt12TFfiffsw5rIwqSqP2p5gZoTQi6

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.

>>>>> 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.

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 --
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========