Rubard pseudonyms 11/27/2022

Discussion:

(слишком старое сообщение для ответа)

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-11-28 00:34:42 UTC

I’m sorry, if I “wrote these things”... I wrote these things? (A logical, if not legal, tautology?)

(A selection of) writing pseudonyms used by Jeffrey Rubard, US, during a period from the 1990s to the 2020s: some names were shared with another individual, or a group of people.

Fiction:

Jacques Roubaud (does not correspond to known French national)
Paul Auster (less *Country of Last Things*, attributed to deceased individual not in Auster YouTube videos etc.)
John Wray
Jeffrey Lent
Jeff Noon
Andy Weir
Cixin Liu
Tom Rob Smith
Jamie Ford
Martin Solares
David Leavitt
Adam Rapp (shared)
John A. Heldt
Russell Rowland
Edward Rutherfurd (shared)
Abdelrahman Munif (backdated to Intifada times)
Laszlo Krasznahorkai (novel list shared w/European philosopher)
Simon Sebag Montefiore
Richard Russo (less *Mohawk*, attributed to deceased individual)
Richard Flanagan
Nick Hornby
Jonathan Littell (Prix Goncourt winner)
Mark Z. Danielewski
Arturo Perez-Reverte
Brendan Mathews
Yann Martel
Roddy Doyle (less first three novels)
Douglas Stuart
W.G. Sebald (backdated)
Stieg Larssen
Anthony Doerr
Tom Drury
Keith Waldrop
M.T. Anderson
Garth Greenwell
John Green
Antonio Scurati (English texts original, Italian translations by Italian national “of some repute”)
Mark Helprin
Joshua Cohen (fiction)
Cormac McCarthy (“general Western life”)

History:

Gordon S. Wood
Alan Taylor
John Ferling (shared, 70s-80s books by another hand)
David Hackett Fischer
Jon Meacham
Ted Widmer
Scott Reynolds Nelson
David W. Blight (shared)
David Priestland
Ian Bell
Michael Dobbs (not *House of Cards* and related series, by a Canadian national)
Robert W. Merry
Richard White
Stephen Greenblatt (not the literary criticism)
Matthew Stewart
RJ Smith
Michael Azerrad
Nelson Lichtenstein
Timothy Egan
Tracy Daugherty
Greg Grandin
Bryan Burrough
Peter Hall
Louis Menand (imitations of Wallace Shawn’s knowledge-base, etc.)
Simon Sebag Montefiore
Arthur Kempton

Sociology:

Mark Fisher
Craig Calhoun (as in Calhoun County, MI)
William Rasch
Randall Collins (group)
Göran Therborn (group of writers?)
John Roberts (not John Roberts, US)
Don Ross
Derrick Jensen
Gerd Baumann
Enzo Traverso
John Bellamy Foster
Richard A. Lanham (shared)
Joseph Carroll
Gerd Baumann
Jens Rubart
Hans-Georg Moeller
Michael Bentley
Jeffrey Alexander (less *Theoretical Logic in Sociology*)
John Roemer
Mark Fisher
Jan-Werner Müller
Oliver Zunz

Philosophy:

Tyler Burge (some material backdated)
Joshua Cohen (Rousseau)
Tim van Gelder
Peter Carruthers
Jeff Malpas (group)
Manuel Delanda
John Heil
Kojin Karatani (group)
R.J. Lipton
Patrick J. Hurley
Peter Godfrey-Smith
Huw Price
Evan Thompson
Kevin Lynch
Alexander Stern
Stephen Houlgate (one volume by another hand)
Ian Hacking
Gerard LeBrun
Alain Badiou
Ted Sider
Axel Honneth
Detlev Claussen
Gilles Dowek
Jean-Luc Nancy
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
Joseph LeDoux
Eric Baum
Murray Clarke
Paul Guyer (shared)
Karl Ameriks
Quentin Meillassoux

Jeffrey Rubard (*The Torso of Humanity: A Reading of Heidegger’s Being and Time*, 2019, etext)

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-11-28 21:42:08 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard
I’m sorry, if I “wrote these things”... I wrote these things? (A logical, if not legal, tautology?)
(A selection of) writing pseudonyms used by Jeffrey Rubard, US, during a period from the 1990s to the 2020s: some names were shared with another individual, or a group of people.
Jacques Roubaud (does not correspond to known French national)
Paul Auster (less *Country of Last Things*, attributed to deceased individual not in Auster YouTube videos etc.)
John Wray
Jeffrey Lent
Jeff Noon
Andy Weir
Cixin Liu
Tom Rob Smith
Jamie Ford
Martin Solares
David Leavitt
Adam Rapp (shared)
John A. Heldt
Russell Rowland
Edward Rutherfurd (shared)
Abdelrahman Munif (backdated to Intifada times)
Laszlo Krasznahorkai (novel list shared w/European philosopher)
Simon Sebag Montefiore
Richard Russo (less *Mohawk*, attributed to deceased individual)
Richard Flanagan
Nick Hornby
Jonathan Littell (Prix Goncourt winner)
Mark Z. Danielewski
Arturo Perez-Reverte
Brendan Mathews
Yann Martel
Roddy Doyle (less first three novels)
Douglas Stuart
W.G. Sebald (backdated)
Stieg Larssen
Anthony Doerr
Tom Drury
Keith Waldrop
M.T. Anderson
Garth Greenwell
John Green
Antonio Scurati (English texts original, Italian translations by Italian national “of some repute”)
Mark Helprin
Joshua Cohen (fiction)
Cormac McCarthy (“general Western life”)
Gordon S. Wood
Alan Taylor
John Ferling (shared, 70s-80s books by another hand)
David Hackett Fischer
Jon Meacham
Ted Widmer
Scott Reynolds Nelson
David W. Blight (shared)
David Priestland
Ian Bell
Michael Dobbs (not *House of Cards* and related series, by a Canadian national)
Robert W. Merry
Richard White
Stephen Greenblatt (not the literary criticism)
Matthew Stewart
RJ Smith
Michael Azerrad
Nelson Lichtenstein
Timothy Egan
Tracy Daugherty
Greg Grandin
Bryan Burrough
Peter Hall
Louis Menand (imitations of Wallace Shawn’s knowledge-base, etc.)
Simon Sebag Montefiore
Arthur Kempton
Mark Fisher
Craig Calhoun (as in Calhoun County, MI)
William Rasch
Randall Collins (group)
Göran Therborn (group of writers?)
John Roberts (not John Roberts, US)
Don Ross
Derrick Jensen
Gerd Baumann
Enzo Traverso
John Bellamy Foster
Richard A. Lanham (shared)
Joseph Carroll
Gerd Baumann
Jens Rubart
Hans-Georg Moeller
Michael Bentley
Jeffrey Alexander (less *Theoretical Logic in Sociology*)
John Roemer
Mark Fisher
Jan-Werner Müller
Oliver Zunz
Tyler Burge (some material backdated)
Joshua Cohen (Rousseau)
Tim van Gelder
Peter Carruthers
Jeff Malpas (group)
Manuel Delanda
John Heil
Kojin Karatani (group)
R.J. Lipton
Patrick J. Hurley
Peter Godfrey-Smith
Huw Price
Evan Thompson
Kevin Lynch
Alexander Stern
Stephen Houlgate (one volume by another hand)
Ian Hacking
Gerard LeBrun
Alain Badiou
Ted Sider
Axel Honneth
Detlev Claussen
Gilles Dowek
Jean-Luc Nancy
Jean-Pierre Dupuy
Joseph LeDoux
Eric Baum
Murray Clarke
Paul Guyer (shared)
Karl Ameriks
Quentin Meillassoux
Jeffrey Rubard (*The Torso of Humanity: A Reading of Heidegger’s Being and Time*, 2019, etext)

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-11-28 21:51:04 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-11-30 00:42:55 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-11-30 03:05:41 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Could they be the work of *other* people, for example? Could you think of who that *could be*?
"Nuh-uh."
Better not ask for so much from people, then.

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-11-30 21:36:29 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Could they be the work of *other* people, for example? Could you think of who that *could be*?
"Nuh-uh."
Better not ask for so much from people, then.

"I just choose not to think about this."
That would be, uh, normal.

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-12-02 22:18:58 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Could they be the work of *other* people, for example? Could you think of who that *could be*?
"Nuh-uh."
Better not ask for so much from people, then.

"I just choose not to think about this."
That would be, uh, normal.

But this is really much more how that works than "See, I have a thought, and the thought is..."

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-12-05 00:44:30 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Could they be the work of *other* people, for example? Could you think of who that *could be*?
"Nuh-uh."
Better not ask for so much from people, then.

"I just choose not to think about this."
That would be, uh, normal.

But this is really much more how that works than "See, I have a thought, and the thought is..."

Try these:

Dave Hickey
Francis Spufford
Peter Hall
John Roemer

Quick Check: "Nah, man. One of those is strictly impossible to have been your work, or so it would seem."
A: Do you hear yourself talk? This is one of those observations that would "go as far as it did", right?

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-12-05 20:46:42 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Could they be the work of *other* people, for example? Could you think of who that *could be*?
"Nuh-uh."
Better not ask for so much from people, then.

"I just choose not to think about this."
That would be, uh, normal.

But this is really much more how that works than "See, I have a thought, and the thought is..."

Dave Hickey
Francis Spufford
Peter Hall
John Roemer
Quick Check: "Nah, man. One of those is strictly impossible to have been your work, or so it would seem."
A: Do you hear yourself talk? This is one of those observations that would "go as far as it did", right?

"This is such bullshit. How could you even be, like, 'Ian Hacking'? You're just high and your brain is destroyed."
Ans: By writing some, if not all, of the works attributed to the "pen-name"? "I don't get it like that." What's
with your all-importance? You understand what I just said, right? The "truth-conditions" the claim would sketch
out?

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-12-05 20:50:20 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Could they be the work of *other* people, for example? Could you think of who that *could be*?
"Nuh-uh."
Better not ask for so much from people, then.

"I just choose not to think about this."
That would be, uh, normal.

But this is really much more how that works than "See, I have a thought, and the thought is..."

Perhaps: "Works by "Ian Hacking" up to *The Taming of Chance* have some origin other than the "offices" of Jeffrey Rubard,
who at under ten years of age would have not been quite equal to the material presented. After *Rewriting the Soul* Rubard
becomes plausible of the author of most of the 'Hacking' works then appearing, if not actually all of the one in the 'new series'."
"That's crazy. I hate it."
"People often have that reaction to the works of Hacking. But can you, too, see the arguments of those who wonder
which QWERTY keyboard was manned by fingers that typed the manuscript of this, or this, or this text?"
"Maybe it was a Dvorak keyboard."
"I see you. Perhaps you do not see much."

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-12-06 03:22:04 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Could they be the work of *other* people, for example? Could you think of who that *could be*?
"Nuh-uh."
Better not ask for so much from people, then.

"I just choose not to think about this."
That would be, uh, normal.

But this is really much more how that works than "See, I have a thought, and the thought is..."

"Or maybe... just maybe... Ian Hacking's work was done by another figure, *not you*."
Sure.
"Huh? Excuse me?"
Yeah, you guys kind of do forget the flourishes you put in like "just maybe"...

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-12-06 19:55:28 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Could they be the work of *other* people, for example? Could you think of who that *could be*?
"Nuh-uh."
Better not ask for so much from people, then.

"I just choose not to think about this."
That would be, uh, normal.

But this is really much more how that works than "See, I have a thought, and the thought is..."

"Or maybe... just maybe... Ian Hacking's work was done by another figure, *not you*."
Sure.
"Huh? Excuse me?"
Yeah, you guys kind of do forget the flourishes you put in like "just maybe"...

"What's that supposed to mean?"
You can't cash in the words of these artificers at 'face value'. The 'face value' of "just maybe" here would be...
"Um, the normal *prima facie* assumption of work done by someone like 'Ian Hacking' is that none of it would be attributable to a non-Canadian hipster lumpenproletarian 'native' to the US West Coast. Those sorts of assumptions are usually things to 'roll with'." Unfortunately, the actual rejoinder: "Sure, sure it's weird. Apparently it's the objective fact of the matter about the post-1990 work, though... or why would it matter 'where someone's head was at', anyone's, as regards that objective fact of the matter?" is something like *nicht so* -- "just not a good topic" -- (not a quantity we previously dealt with in American society much, or dealt with so much in the Anglophone world beyond that.)

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-12-06 20:50:02 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Could they be the work of *other* people, for example? Could you think of who that *could be*?
"Nuh-uh."
Better not ask for so much from people, then.

"I just choose not to think about this."
That would be, uh, normal.

But this is really much more how that works than "See, I have a thought, and the thought is..."

"Or maybe... just maybe... Ian Hacking's work was done by another figure, *not you*."
Sure.
"Huh? Excuse me?"
Yeah, you guys kind of do forget the flourishes you put in like "just maybe"...

"And I'm sorry, Cormac McCarthy is an eightysomething man from Texas. Sorry."
"About 'sorry'... maybe he just 'looks' and acts that way?"

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-12-07 03:19:21 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Could they be the work of *other* people, for example? Could you think of who that *could be*?
"Nuh-uh."
Better not ask for so much from people, then.

"I just choose not to think about this."
That would be, uh, normal.

But this is really much more how that works than "See, I have a thought, and the thought is..."

"Or maybe... just maybe... Ian Hacking's work was done by another figure, *not you*."
Sure.
"Huh? Excuse me?"
Yeah, you guys kind of do forget the flourishes you put in like "just maybe"...

"And I'm sorry, Cormac McCarthy is an eightysomething man from Texas. Sorry."
"About 'sorry'... maybe he just 'looks' and acts that way?"

"Oh, please. How could that be at all possible?"
"Do you suppose Cormac McCarthy is the 'man at the other end of the lens' in author photographs?"
"I do, yes."
"What if that man were really in his early forties?"

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-12-07 03:34:10 UTC

Permalink

Post by Jeffrey Rubard

"Or not? Maybe your claims are substantially false?"

I guess you could look into "falsifying" them, studying how they are poorly coherent, etc.

"Maybe it just makes no sense at all?"
A little too optimistic a thought (this era is a bit "soft in the head"), since we ordinarily reckon "no sense at all" as "some sense" in an oblique way.

Could they be the work of *other* people, for example? Could you think of who that *could be*?
"Nuh-uh."
Better not ask for so much from people, then.

"I just choose not to think about this."
That would be, uh, normal.

But this is really much more how that works than "See, I have a thought, and the thought is..."

"Or maybe... just maybe... Ian Hacking's work was done by another figure, *not you*."
Sure.
"Huh? Excuse me?"
Yeah, you guys kind of do forget the flourishes you put in like "just maybe"...

"And I'm sorry, Cormac McCarthy is an eightysomething man from Texas. Sorry."
"About 'sorry'... maybe he just 'looks' and acts that way?"

"Oh, who else are we to try this 'thought experiment' with? Eduardo Galeano? Snort."
Well, hmm. What is the Uruguayan memory of Galeano like?

Jeffrey Rubard

2022-12-07 22:28:49 UTC