The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V


Neil Parille

Recommended Posts

According to Amy Peikoff, Leonard Peikoff is the author of the email:

Verified

Submitted by Amy Peikoff on Fri, 2009-06-05 18:25.

Yes, the e-mail is from Leonard. Can someone explain to me briefly why its authorship was questioned? Just because people doubt he would support PARC? Is that it? Or is there more to it?

I presume it will be correct to cite it as Peikoff's actual opinion when discussing PARC (with the qualification, of course, "as claimed by Ms. Amy Peikoff" until he, himself, makes a public statement).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Amy Peikoff, Leonard Peikoff is the author of the email:
Verified

Submitted by Amy Peikoff on Fri, 2009-06-05 18:25.

Yes, the e-mail is from Leonard. Can someone explain to me briefly why its authorship was questioned? Just because people doubt he would support PARC? Is that it? Or is there more to it?

I presume it will be correct to cite it as Peikoff's actual opinion when discussing PARC (with the qualification, of course, "as claimed by Ms. Amy Peikoff" until he, himself, makes a public statement).

Michael

I see no reason to doubt what she said in the least.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a post from Robert on Solo Passion that I believe should be part of this thread also:

Reasons for Doubt

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Fri, 2009-06-05 19:29.

Dear Ms. Peikoff,

Obviously, Leonard Peikoff supported Jim Valliant's book at some earlier time, or it wouldn't have been published with Ayn Rand's diaries in it.

I was wondering whether Dr. Peikoff still supported the book, given the thorough debunking it has since received, and Mr. Valliant's questionable public conduct in its promotion.

But I was hardly shocked to see a statement of support for the book, or, given that, a complaint to Jimmy Wales.

What made no sense to me at all was why I (and I alone) would be cc'd on that email to Jimmy Wales. I have never received email from Leonard Peikoff before. I was not aware that he even knew who I was. In addition, he did not respond to my request to authenticate the email, made less than 24 hours after it was sent.

Further examination showed some rhetoric that, for one reason or another, didn't seem characteristic, and a "hashed" userid.

Sincerely,

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a gem from Robert on SLOP (and I know he is not fat-headed enough to go around repeating his best stuff all the time, so I'll do it—from here). It's only part of the post, the part that cut to the chase and blew some BS off the saddle.

When Mr. Perigo and his acolytes complain of

Rand-diminution

Hero-diminution

or, most grandiosely of all,

Humanity-diminution

What they really mean in every case is

Perigo-diminution.

Problem is, no one else in the entire world is offended by Perigo-diminution.

I do admit that, when I think of Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo as "humanity" (which is not often), I am a diminisher of that particular humanity. It needs diminishing, too, since it puffs up into a distorted caricature all the time on autopilot.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, here is my response to Dr. Peikoff's email. I sent it to the "hashed" address, and have no idea whether he ever received it.

It was sent at 2:09 PM EDT, on Saturday May 30, 2009.

Dear Dr. Peikoff,

We have not corresponded in the past, so I was not expecting to find myself copied on your email to Jimmy Wales.

You may know that I am not a fan of Jim Valliant's book, or of Mr. Valliant's public defenses of his book. I believe that Ayn Rand's journal entries could have been given a far more dignified presentation had they not been nearly buried under Mr. Valliant's hectoring commentary. I am also convinced that Mr. Valliant's manner of promoting his book has undermined its reputation, as well as his own.

Be that as it may, Barbara Branden had nothing to do with the recent Wikipedia editorial decision. Her email of May 16, 2009, which you may have seen, simply relayed an item posted by Michael Stuart Kelly on his Objectivist Living board.

I have read the long string of editorial discussions that led up to the decision and I see nothing from her in it. What's more, Ms. Branden has publicly stated that she does not read Wikipedia entries concerning Ayn Rand; has never participated in editing Wikipedia or in editorial discussions at Wikipedia; and did not request that Jim Valliant's book be deemed an unreliable source. As an author who has cited Mr. Valliant's book in an article and a book chapter, I agree with two harsh critics of Mr. Valliant and his book who did make comments toward the end of the editorial thread (Neil Parille and William Scott Scherk); both objected to the decision as overly sweeping.

You do not mention it in your email, but there was a separate and supposedly independent editorial decision at Wikipedia: Mr. Valliant has been banned from editing any Ayn Rand-related articles for 6 months. The cited offenses were violations of editorial protocol and etiquette, such as "edit-warring" and creating a fictional alter ego (a "sock puppet") to chime in and lend support to his actions. The reason I say "supposedly independent" is that some of Mr. Valliant's editing inserted references to his book in places where many readers considered them to be irrelevant, and it is reasonable to infer this was a major irritant to the other editors.

Sincerely,

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is the follow-up that I sent to the public email address on peikoff.com.

This one went out at 3:16 PM EDT on May 30.

Dear Dr. Peikoff,

Sorry to bother you with duplicate emails, but I received this item earlier today and would like to make sure that it came from you.

Sincerely,

Robert Campbell

[text of the original Peikoff to Wales email attached]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is the follow-up that I sent to the public email address on peikoff.com.

This one went out at 3:16 PM EDT on May 30.

Dear Dr. Peikoff,

Sorry to bother you with duplicate emails, but I received this item earlier today and would like to make sure that it came from you.

Sincerely,

Robert Campbell

[text of the original Peikoff to Wales email attached]

Robert, I'm sure the sanction rules apply to you, although I'm amazed you got the e-mail. I've tried to listen to all sides of the this debate. The way people have been used as pawns in these Objectivist wars is appalling. I include TWIMC, the treatment of Chris Sciabarra and the savaging of Rand's character by the other side in this assessment. Let me ask you a straightforward question: what is your purpose in all of this? The Rand legacy wars reflect a lack of vision for what intellectual progress in the Objectivist orbit could be on both sides.

I feel regret for any involvement in all of this, not because I don't think I was trying to strike the right balance (and I've sometimes missed), but because the world is so large and what's left to discover too important.

I think both (all?) sides of the movement have become unambitious, ineffective and ingrown when it come to intellectual progress. I'm unfortunately not going to be able to make it to make it to the seminar this year. What would you like to see happen?

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Dr. Peikoff is "willing" to do and what he will do in this case isn't going to be one and the same.

The letter he sent Wikipedia is bs boilerplate written for a friend who somehow got him to Cc Robert Campbell for the subsequent effect of getting it more out there in Internet-land than it otherwise would have--or so I think anyway.

LP does not engage in Internet conversations if for no other reason he's busy writing what I'll bet will be a worthless book hardly anybody will read, aside from his considered view that such conversations aren't very valuable. You cannot turn reason into faux algebra and add value. It's just an attempt to set himself up as a middleman and rake in a percentage as the authority--just like his relationship to Objectivism. A similar thing happened with the guy who wrote "A New Kind of Science." It's still the same old science and epistemology: logic and reason won't be changed either.

Will I buy and read Peikoff's book? Yes. Might I eat crow? Yes. Will I? I doubt it.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I haven't received a response to Dr. Peikoff concerning my questions posted on SOLO.

-NEIL

If he does I'll mail you a $25 gift certificate for a restaurant meal. Not as much as Valliant promised you last year but more than he delivered.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the looks of things if he talks at all it's worse than Stephen Hawking on a good oscillator day.

I think they prop him up on a stick or something.

rde

Off to watch Zombie movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: Brant

LP does not engage in Internet conversations if for no other reason he's busy writing what I'll bet will be a worthless book hardly anybody will read, aside from his considered view that such conversations aren't very valuable.

I assume you mean his DIM book -- Disintegrated, Integrated and Misintegrated. As someone said, the things Peikoff disagress with, agrees with, and partially agrees with.

I listened to his lectures from 2006 or so on the "DIM hypothesis" and wasn't impressed. Intellectual history isn't his strong suit.

-Neil Parille

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just sent an e-mail to Dr. Peikoff inviting him to testify here on the OL forum about the accuracy of PARC. I'm looking forward to his joining us and answering our questions.

Jonathan,

LOL...

I really like your no-nonsense approach of seeing if people will actually do as they say.

But I seriously doubt Dr. Peikoff would ever appear on this forum. Ever. I find the possibility so remote that I never considered it before. Actually, I still don't. (Frankly, I don't care for the idea, either, because OL was conceived in part as an intellectual shelter against subculture nastiness for Barbara and Nathaniel and I figure great discomfort for all would result.)

But since you did put something in motion, and since according to Ms. Amy Peikoff, he did author that odd email and CC it to Robert proving that anything is possible, let me state the following for the record.

Everyone who posts on OL is bound by the same posting guidelines for the privilege. That would apply to him, also, in the extremely unlikely event that he accepts your invitation.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clear something up: (Peikoff) "I will testify in any forum to the accuracy of Mr. Valliant's book."

So what if he did? Think about it...what would that actually mean?

At this point, not even as much as when a bastard stepchild gets his "dad" to write a note to teacher saying he really didn't fudge on his research paper.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Ellen seems upset that you don't write emails in the manner she would have you write them. I swear I can't glean a sliver of substance other than that from her objections.

I read and reread your emails to Peikoff, then I read and reread her objections. All I get of substance (as opposed to some odd speculations) is that she is miffed at not being the referee. Is there something else I'm missing?

Maybe you should consult Ellen the next time you want to write to someone prominent in the subcommunity. She will make sure you get it right.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just sent an e-mail to Dr. Peikoff inviting him to testify here on the OL forum about the accuracy of PARC. I'm looking forward to his joining us and answering our questions.

Jonathan,

LOL...

I really like your no-nonsense approach of seeing if people will actually do as they say.

But I seriously doubt Dr. Peikoff would ever appear on this forum. Ever. I find the possibility so remote that I never considered it before. Actually, I still don't. (Frankly, I don't care for the idea, either, because OL was conceived in part as an intellectual shelter against subculture nastiness for Barbara and Nathaniel and I figure great discomfort for all would result.)

But since you did put something in motion, and since according to Ms. Amy Peikoff, he did author that odd email and CC it to Robert proving that anything is possible, let me state the following for the record.

Everyone who posts on OL is bound by the same posting guidelines for the privilege. That would apply to him, also, in the extremely unlikely event that he accepts your invitation.

Michael

Yeah, I don't think that Peikoff will be accepting my invitation to post here on OL. In fact, I think that his letter to Jimbo (and Robert) means the opposite of what it says. It means that Peikoff will not testify in any Wikipedia forums, or anywhere else where there is the possibility that he might have to face informed critics (or "enemies" of Rand and Objectivism). Peikoff's letter was an attempt to subvert the normal Wikipedia processes. I think that he hoped that any pull that he might have had with Jimbo would've gotten him what he wanted. If he was actually interested in testifying in forums, he would have done so.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My letter to Leonard Peikoff dated 6-15-2009:

Dear Dr. Peikoff,

Amy Peikoff recently confirmed that an email sent to James Wales of Wikipedia in your name is authentic. In this letter you state, “I will testify in any forum to the accuracy of Mr. Valliant’s book." That being the case, I would like to ask you a few questions touching on the accuracy of Mr. James Valliant’s book, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics (“PARC”).

1. In PARC, Mr. Valliant claims that a surprise party that Nathaniel and Barbara Branden attended to celebrate the publication of Atlas Shrugged constituted an attempt by the Brandens to “control Rand’s context through deception” and “manipulate Rand with their lies.” Were you at this party and do you believe that the inference that Mr. Valliant draws is reasonable?

2. James Valliant writes that the 1968 statement by Ayn Rand concerning her break with the Brandens is accurate. In that statement Rand claimed that Nathaniel Branden authorized a loan in 1967 that depleted the cash reserves of The Objectivist. Do the Archives have the financial statements from this time period and, if so, do these documents support Ayn Rand’s claim?

3. In Ayn Rand’s 1968 statement she alleges that the Nathaniel Branden Institute lecturers were underpaid. In response, Barbara Branden claimed that you asked her (Branden) for permission to tell your professors how much you were paid to show Objectivism’s “practicality.” Do you dispute Mrs. Branden’s account?

4. What do you know about the origin of the name “Rand”? Did Miss Rand ever tell you or anyone else that she took her name from a Remington Rand typewriter?

5. In The Passion of Ayn Rand, Mrs. Branden writes that Ayn Rand stopped smoking in her doctor’s office because she was informed by her doctor that she likely had lung cancer. You have written that Miss Rand stopped smoking because you and she became convinced that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Is Barbara Branden in error?

6. Did you or anyone else ever ask Mrs. Rand if she had or was having an affair with Nathaniel Branden? If so what did she say?

7. In PARC, James Valliant disputes the Brandens' claim that the O’Connors’ marriage was in trouble in the forties for lack of intellectual communication. What can you tell us about their marriage at that time?

8. Many people have said that Miss Rand held eccentric ideas (such as cancer was caused by “bad premises”) and that she was extremely difficult and controlling. Do you dispute these characterizations?

9. Prior to the publication of PARC had you read Nathaniel Branden’s memoirs and Barbara Branden’s biography?

10. James Valliant argues that Miss Rand was not jealous of Patrecia Scott. Do you agree with Mr. Valliant?

Thanks again for this opportunity to ask you a few questions concerning Mr. Valliant’s book.

Warmest Regards,

Neil Parille

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I didn't get time to edit my post to Robert, so here is the pertinent part:

Maybe you should consult Ellen the next time you want to write to someone prominent in the subcommunity. She will make sure you get it right.

That applies to you, too, buster.

Apparently Ms. Stuttle does not approve of something about you that she used to approve of. So you better watch your step if you know what is good for you.

You really should get her permission to... er... think... I think...

:)

(Man, am I getting tribal as all hell in response to tribal crap... :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginny,

That's ALL it is.

But there is a game involved that is instigated by people with severely neurotic issues. They go out in public and attack and attack and attack and attack and attack and attack someone to get attention. (That's all PARC is, for instance, but I am not exactly discussing that book. My present target is basically Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo and his clique-claque.)

Finally you respond to the attacks. For instance, here on OL we went for almost a year of being slimed in public from SLOP without responding. But it broke open when SLOP people viciously attacked Chris Sciabarra.

Then there's the catch. People start pointing the finger at you and saying you are being tribal. They forget about things like the passage of a year of wiping public spittle off and trying to ignore it.

So rather than play that silly game, I will openly say it.

Attack me and the people I care about and I will get tribal as all hell when I hit back.

There.

No hypocrisy on this end.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now