"Neo-Tech"

[TheEgoist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_R._Wallace

It appears that some quack claims to have created an off-shoot of Objectivism known as "Neo-Tech". I've never seen anything on the forum about it before, but it's clearly quite silly.

I discovered this while researching the normally antagonistic Batman character Anarky, who is an espoused Anarchist of the libertarian brand.

Edited May 9, 2009 by TheEgoist

[DavidOdden]

They are actually responsible for the creation of humanities.philosophy.objectivism. Long ago, they invaded (utterly unmoderated) alt.philosophy.objectivism and made APO unusable. Marginally-moderated HPO was then created -- with the only rule being "You cannot mention Neo-Tech".

[Space Patroller]

They are actually responsible for the creation of humanities.philosophy.objectivism. Long ago, they invaded (utterly unmoderated) alt.philosophy.objectivism and made APO unusable. Marginally-moderated HPO was then created -- with the only rule being "You cannot mention Neo-Tech".

From what I gleaned of it. they or their leader holds to something called "Liberarted Objectivism" meaning Objecitivism wihout some kind of organization (I read that as ARI) and has accused the Objectivist leadership of ad hominem arguments against Branden, which I have not seen here, Kelley of whom I know nothing and Rothbard (how you can do an ad hominem on a person who supported the Iranian and Sandinista Revolutions with the excuse that "libertarians can't be responsible for the outcomes of them [knowing full well they were repressive in nature]" I don't know. it takes a pretty lowgrade lifeform to do that anyway). The thesis being that Objecitivism will do well without being institutioally organized. The argument has some merit insofar as organizations tend to get into personal feuds and resembles some misgivings I had expressed in 1978 about having an intellectual heir is an attempt to guarantee the future and therefore futile and in say 2500 AD, upon coming upon a problem. Objectivistss may try to solve it be quoting a long line of Peikoffs back to Peikoff then Rand rather than solve it independently. But on the other hand someone has to see to it that it's kept intact. I never got to read OPAR. I'm so much of an Originalist, I wonder if I might consider it Revisionism:). I suppor the closed system thesis

http://dancona.spacepatrol.us/thatsall.html

I can give it, for knowledgeable people, a nihil obstat, but not an imprimatur. It does look Like I could have some fun with it but that's about all.

My comment is the same the one Ayn Rand had when Martha's Vinyard was considering secession from Massatuchitts: "I sort of think they're cute".

There does seem to be something about Objectivism that brings out the sci-fi/avante garde in people. Well, in AS you had the ray screen and the Xylophone and I swar that Galt pulled a "Day the Earth Stood Still" number. There were even some moves afoot in the mid-'70's to classify AS as sciencne fiction and some as fantasy.I thik Rand put a lot on that horse and I wonder how many persons got the full breadth of it and she did say it was a "stunt" novel. I would love to have been a telepathic fly on the wall while she was writhing that work. I guarantee we don't know the full story there. The thing is bigger than it looks and has more to it than she every explained. There was more to her than met the eye, too. What I get is "we will control the horizontal. we will control the vertical. We can set the focus to a soft blur or crystal clarity..."

When Kendall first laid that one on me, I thought it referred to a style. But no, Actually I'm stylistically more "Archo-Tech" with my roots in the 1950's. That style is natural to me and a part of me, steeped as I am in science fiction culture at many levels from space opera to hard science fiction. But I don't see any sci-fi in Neo-Tech and what is the "neo" or the "tech"? There seems to be no "there" there. I mean people have been trying to get me to develop psychohistory for almost 25 years. The first references to that in real terms I got in the early '70's and they were on the order of analyizing leaders in Freudian terms as in "Kissinger on the Couch". Then I found that I coul use my 36 credits in psych and 20 in history to predict trends, then I found that on the local talk shows of the early 1980's predict a person's ideology by their voice. To check it, I taught an ordinary person how to do ti and she got as good as I was measured by the correct guesses, over 90%, so I knew I was onto something. That was no real great shakes since some repoter used a machine called a Personal Stress Analyser to figure that Carter was lying about something, Criminal Justice curricula were starting to include voice analysis and as a vocalist and an excellent liar I learned to control my voice. What I did identify that was new was what I called a "sense of life" component in the voice; a subtle but omnipresent emotional tone that did not vary no matter how the person tried to use his voice. I was dead scared of the Reagan Administration supporting the Muhajadeem, saying to a friend, "look these are not freedom fighters like you guys are saying. They're muslim holy warriors who hate us as much as the Sovs" I was told "Let them have Afghanistan: The land is crappy and they can't do anything with it". To which I said "they can use it as a staging area to take a shot at us. These guys are fanatics and just don't give a shit". The Enquirer was running the usual psychic crapola once and as part of the article that was read to me, the challenge was to make 5 predictions. I just looked at some of the trends in the news and got about 60% and people started oooing and ahhhing. I look at economics as a branch of psychology. The only unique thing is that I can predict what people will do given their philosophical outlooks and there's a story I can tell about that, too. I figure out how fortune tellers (not astrologers, but card an palm readers or any interactive fortune teller) get it righ so often, and they do, the secret is not occult, but culture. These late middle-aged women know how to evaluate your age (which tells her your stage of life and what's big with you) and your cultural-psychological background. The cards and palmistry just provide a framework for talk and therefore data acquisition. You tell them all they need to know without knowing it. learned that trick from observation before I was 13.

So wha'ts the real tech in NeoTech?

Edited May 10, 2009 by Space Patroller

[RussK]

They are actually responsible for the creation of humanities.philosophy.objectivism. Long ago, they invaded (utterly unmoderated) alt.philosophy.objectivism and made APO unusable. Marginally-moderated HPO was then created -- with the only rule being "You cannot mention Neo-Tech".

I didn't know that, I first learned of it on HPO, but never really knew what the hell it was and no one would really say much about it--which you just explained why. Just going to their website was enough for me to know that it was quackery. The last time I heard about it was a couple of years ago after a friendly poker match, and someone brought up the stupid poker book that 'Neo-tech' was marketing.

[aristotlejones]

They are actually responsible for the creation of humanities.philosophy.objectivism. Long ago, they invaded (utterly unmoderated) alt.philosophy.objectivism and made APO unusable. Marginally-moderated HPO was then created -- with the only rule being "You cannot mention Neo-Tech".

I actually remember seeing that play out. Gawd I am olde.

<Φ>aj

[Space Patroller]

I didn't know that, I first learned of it on HPO, but never really knew what the hell it was and no one would really say much about it--which you just explained why. Just going to their website was enough for me to know that it was quackery. The last time I heard about it was a couple of years ago after a friendly poker match, and someone brought up the stupid poker book that 'Neo-tech' was marketing.

I vaguely remember seeing an ad for that book. But do I need to spand that kind of jack to be told that Objecitivsm is aces when I've known for almost 40 years that it's the best bet

[khaight]

I actually remember seeing that play out. Gawd I am olde.

That's nothing. I remember the Great Objectivism Flamewars of '89 on news.groups, during the first attempt to create a 'Big 7' Usenet group for the discussion of Objectivism. If I recall correctly various rivals wound up trying to create three different groups, talk.philosophy.objectivism, sci.philosophy.objectivism and talk.religion.objectivism. (The last was from a bunch of anti-Objectivists, obviously.) All three failed.

Wow, was that really two decades ago? How time flies.

[Space Patroller]

Well, actually there is a grain of truth to what they have to say besides Objectivism beng #1. Specifically it concernes the Universal Civilization. I was there when we contacted them, or rather they contacted us some 35 years ago. It seems that their pre-contact team had developed an addiction to Rice Kirspies, Cheerios and Raisn Bran. Now they wanted a way to transport large amounts of this thoroughout the galaxies.

Their emissaries said as much and they wanted to use for experimental purposes vehicles ranging in length between 20 and 40 feet and in width from 8 to 12 and I said "All we have in those sizes are junked Greyhounds, but I imagine that the engine compartments will not hold motors of the size you need"

"That is no problem" I was told "The omnigalactic drive system is no bigger than a large V-8 engine" so the deal was done and it worked perfectly and they are transporting Cheerios, Kix and Rice Krispies all across the heavens to this dayl

I asked the leader of these aliens back in '74 "What's in it for us?"

to which he answered "You will appreciate this when you enter your Computer age"

"What has intergalactic Greyonhunds toting Rice Krispies across all of spece to do wiht advanced computers?" I queried

"It will be a valuable item"

"Yeah: What?"

"The Universal Cereal Bus".