Speaking of New Developments at ARI...


PDS

Recommended Posts

Guess who wrote the following: "If any of you believe that this makes me a dictatorial opponent of independence or free speech, then God help you, because reality obviously hasn’t. And if, as seems possible, my detractors in this issue represent a sizable faction within the Objectivist movement whose spokesmen include magazine founders and PhDs with podcasts– then God help Objectivism, too."

Yes, you guessed it: Leonard "I Closed the System Before I Opened It," Peikoff. November 5, 2010. [see here http://www.peikoff.com/peikoff-vs-an-ari-board-member/ ].

Here is what he says about LL and McCaskey's book review: "To sneer in a public setting at an epochal Objectivist book qualifies, in my judgment, as harm."

And to think that I had always considered Atlas Shrugged to be an epochal Objectivist book...

Edited by PDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

More entrails for the entrail-readers to grope.

Full text:

PEIKOFF VS. AN ARI BOARD MEMBER

November 05, 2010

(The context of undisputed facts in this issue is not repeated here.)

1. Dante’s phrase does not necessarily imply moral criticism, as Ayn Rand (who often used it) understood. It is merely an eloquent way of saying that in certain extremely negative situations—whether pertaining to poor behavior, poor penmanship, or a poor manicure —there is also a positive element, but that it is not enough to diminish the negative essence.

2. Since I was writing an extemporaneous, private email to two people with the same context of knowledge as mine, not a statement for the general public, I did not aim for objectivity by means of a running philosophic commentary replete with definitions, step-by-step proofs, and answers to possible objections. But when McCaskey asked me to allow him to make my unedited letter public, I had to agree, because I did not want to give him the opportunity to charge that I was engaged in a cover-up.

3. Because some people have turned the dispute into a moral issue, I should state the full truth, which is not stated in the letter: I have, for years, long before Harriman’s book, condemned McCaskey morally: I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual. Had I held a more positive estimate, I would have attempted first of all not to demand his resignation, but to discuss the book with him, understand his viewpoint, and see if together we could resolve and/or delimit his problems with it. But given my opinion of him, intellectual discussion was impossible to me.

4. Despite my view of McCaskey, I never expressed it publicly; it is not my goal to broadcast moral assessments without reason, or to issue blessing or excommunication to self-proclaimed Objectivists. But my goal is to judge the qualifications of those given leading positions of authority in running the Institute, and thus of power in guiding the course of the movement. My concern with this goal does not imply a lack of confidence in Yaron, who has done a splendid job. But the latter does not imply that he and I always agree on suitable Board members.

Ultimately, someone has to decide who is qualified to hold such positions and where the line is to be drawn. An organization devoted to spreading an ideology is not compatible with “freedom” for its leadership to contradict or undermine that ideology. In theory. the best judge of such contradiction would be the person(s) , if he exists, who best understands and upholds the ideology, as evidenced objectively by his lifelong intellectual consistency, philosophic attainments, and practical results. In practice, the best judge would be the person, if he is still alive, who founded the organization and defined its purpose, in this case as a step in carrying out a mandate given him by Ayn Rand. On both counts, only one individual qualifies: me. (I have retired from books, classes, and official position, but not from perception and evaluation.)

McCaskey is free to advocate in any medium whatever he wishes and even to regard himself as an Objectivist, which indeed he may in some form be, for all I know; I have no interest in finding out. My interest is not to ferret out disagreements with Ayn Rand, but to strip them of the imprimatur of the Institute, and thus to diminish the practical consequences of such viewpoints. In other words, my role in this connection is to remove from the existential center of the movement any influence which I evaluate as harmful in practice to the spread of Objectivism. To sneer in a public setting at an epochal Objectivist book qualifies, in my judgment, as harm.

When McCaskey was appointed to the Board, I said nothing, just as I have not objected to the fact that a few longtime Board members and I are on terms of personal enmity, and do not speak to each other. In all these cases my personal dislike was irrelevant. It is only when I perceived harm in practice that I have taken action. And I have set the requirements for such action high. In the 25 years of ARI’s existence, I have vetoed only two individuals prior to McCaskey.

If any of you believe that this makes me a dictatorial opponent of independence or free speech, then God help you, because reality obviously hasn’t. And if, as seems possible, my detractors in this issue represent a sizable faction within the Objectivist movement whose spokesmen include magazine founders and PhDs with podcasts– then God help Objectivism, too.

P.S. Ayn Rand would not have sought to defend herself against a similar attack. She would have regarded such an attack as contemptible, and an answer to it on her part as a moral sanction of the attackers, implying as it does that their charges are worthy of consideration.

I am not as strong as she was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More entrails for the entrail-readers to grope.

Full text:

PEIKOFF VS. AN ARI BOARD MEMBER

November 05, 2010

(The context of undisputed facts in this issue is not repeated here.)

1. Dante’s phrase does not necessarily imply moral criticism, as Ayn Rand (who often used it) understood. It is merely an eloquent way of saying that in certain extremely negative situations—whether pertaining to poor behavior, poor penmanship, or a poor manicure —there is also a positive element, but that it is not enough to diminish the negative essence.

2. Since I was writing an extemporaneous, private email to two people with the same context of knowledge as mine, not a statement for the general public, I did not aim for objectivity by means of a running philosophic commentary replete with definitions, step-by-step proofs, and answers to possible objections. But when McCaskey asked me to allow him to make my unedited letter public, I had to agree, because I did not want to give him the opportunity to charge that I was engaged in a cover-up.

3. Because some people have turned the dispute into a moral issue, I should state the full truth, which is not stated in the letter: I have, for years, long before Harriman’s book, condemned McCaskey morally: I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual. Had I held a more positive estimate, I would have attempted first of all not to demand his resignation, but to discuss the book with him, understand his viewpoint, and see if together we could resolve and/or delimit his problems with it. But given my opinion of him, intellectual discussion was impossible to me.

4. Despite my view of McCaskey, I never expressed it publicly; it is not my goal to broadcast moral assessments without reason, or to issue blessing or excommunication to self-proclaimed Objectivists. But my goal is to judge the qualifications of those given leading positions of authority in running the Institute, and thus of power in guiding the course of the movement. My concern with this goal does not imply a lack of confidence in Yaron, who has done a splendid job. But the latter does not imply that he and I always agree on suitable Board members.

Ultimately, someone has to decide who is qualified to hold such positions and where the line is to be drawn. An organization devoted to spreading an ideology is not compatible with “freedom” for its leadership to contradict or undermine that ideology. In theory. the best judge of such contradiction would be the person(s) , if he exists, who best understands and upholds the ideology, as evidenced objectively by his lifelong intellectual consistency, philosophic attainments, and practical results. In practice, the best judge would be the person, if he is still alive, who founded the organization and defined its purpose, in this case as a step in carrying out a mandate given him by Ayn Rand. On both counts, only one individual qualifies: me. (I have retired from books, classes, and official position, but not from perception and evaluation.)

McCaskey is free to advocate in any medium whatever he wishes and even to regard himself as an Objectivist, which indeed he may in some form be, for all I know; I have no interest in finding out. My interest is not to ferret out disagreements with Ayn Rand, but to strip them of the imprimatur of the Institute, and thus to diminish the practical consequences of such viewpoints. In other words, my role in this connection is to remove from the existential center of the movement any influence which I evaluate as harmful in practice to the spread of Objectivism. To sneer in a public setting at an epochal Objectivist book qualifies, in my judgment, as harm.

When McCaskey was appointed to the Board, I said nothing, just as I have not objected to the fact that a few longtime Board members and I are on terms of personal enmity, and do not speak to each other. In all these cases my personal dislike was irrelevant. It is only when I perceived harm in practice that I have taken action. And I have set the requirements for such action high. In the 25 years of ARI’s existence, I have vetoed only two individuals prior to McCaskey.

If any of you believe that this makes me a dictatorial opponent of independence or free speech, then God help you, because reality obviously hasn’t. And if, as seems possible, my detractors in this issue represent a sizable faction within the Objectivist movement whose spokesmen include magazine founders and PhDs with podcasts– then God help Objectivism, too.

P.S. Ayn Rand would not have sought to defend herself against a similar attack. She would have regarded such an attack as contemptible, and an answer to it on her part as a moral sanction of the attackers, implying as it does that their charges are worthy of consideration.

I am not as strong as she was.

That smell in your nostrils is the Objectivist movement going up in smoke. I wish I were wrong, but this might be the best for everybody, and Objectivism as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any of you believe that this makes me a dictatorial opponent of independence or free speech, then God help you, because reality obviously hasn’t. And if, as seems possible, my detractors in this issue represent a sizable faction within the Objectivist movement whose spokesmen include magazine founders and PhDs with podcasts– then God help Objectivism, too.

Thus Spoke The Emperor Emeritus, which speech begat a response from the PhD with a podcast . . .

By Diana Hsieh

Leonard Peikoff has posted a statement explaining why he demanded John McCaskey's resignation from ARI's Board. People interested in this matter should read it. I should mention, for the sake of clarity, that Craig Biddle is the magazine founder and I'm the PhD with a podcast.

Paul and I will comment on this statement and some other matters later, likely early next week. Until then, and thereafter, I can only ask that my Objectivist friends and supporters, however upset, strive to be calm. We're all in danger of saying things in the heat of anger that we'll later regret, and I'd recommend against that. My hope has always been that the Objectivist movement not self-destruct over this issue, and I still think that's possible.

My super-strict comment policy will remain in force on this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When McCaskey was appointed to the Board, I said nothing, just as I have not objected to the fact that a few longtime Board members and I are on terms of personal enmity, and do not speak to each other. In all these cases my personal dislike was irrelevant.

This strikes me as very strange. There are only eight ARI Board members left: Michael S. Berliner, Arline Mann, Yaron Brook, Carl Barney, Harry Binswanger, Peter LePort, John B. Ridpath, Tara Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the fascist chic of his black monocle to the vocal rhythms which recalled the tempest of a senile storm, Peikoff was a great Troll whom many of us looked up to as an example.

He single handedly wielded a ban hammer matched only by Stalin over at sovietrussia.net - and he wielded it well. He was the engine of the Objectivist Lollercaust, taking down many members whose post count rivaled his own and being utterly unpredictable in his IP bannings.

Sadly, like goat.xe, 2 girls 1 cup and L Ron Hubbard there comes a time for all great trollings to drop off the front page of /b/.

Peikoff, from your /b/rothers in arms, you will be missed.

....

I hope everyone here knows not to look up goat.xe or 2G1C....

Edited by Joel Mac Donald
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh snap! I guess this flew under the radar for a few days. I love the projection: obnoxious braggart, pretentious ignoramus, now there’s Peikoff’s self definition essentialized! It’s pretty clear that Craig Biddle and Comrade Sonia are the people he’s referencing at the end. My inner crocodile self has run out of tears.

Has Peikoff now provided any evidence to justify his behavior? Nope, he’s just acknowledged that he’s long disliked McCaskey, beyond that, what new data do we now have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Dante’s phrase does not necessarily imply moral criticism, as Ayn Rand (who often used it) understood. It is merely an eloquent way of saying that in certain extremely negative situations—whether pertaining to poor behavior, poor penmanship, or a poor manicure —there is also a positive element, but that it is not enough to diminish the negative essence.

Yet in this case it clearly did not imply, but rather denoted moral criticism. Why open, and then dribble on with this irrelevancy?

it is not my goal to broadcast moral assessments without reason, or to issue blessing or excommunication to self-proclaimed Objectivists.

If not his stated goal, it is his practice. Here's a little memento from happier times, zap ahead to 2 minutes in:

http://www.peikoff.com/2009/08/24/episode-076-8242009/

I bet this gets pulled down.

McCaskey is free to advocate in any medium whatever he wishes and even to regard himself as an Objectivist, which indeed he may in some form be, for all I know; I have no interest in finding out.

There are multiple forms? Oh, do expand on this!

It is only when I perceived harm in practice that I have taken action. And I have set the requirements for such action high. In the 25 years of ARI’s existence, I have vetoed only two individuals prior to McCaskey.

Reisman and Packer, by name? High requirements indeed, based on the documentary evidence: http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/ari/index.html

If any of you believe that this makes me a dictatorial opponent of independence or free speech, then God help you, because reality obviously hasn’t.

And just how did he arrive at this conclusion about reality? I don't even know what he's talking about, and here he's saying it's obvious! Reality hasn't helped you, if you believe Peikoff is a dictatorial opponent of independence or free speech...what does that mean?

More later, maybe. I could do a line by line rebuttal, but what's the use? Who needs convincing? Meaning who, that is open to convincing, needs it? I'm starting to think this is only worthwhile for it's comedy potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hadn't realized a new thread had been opened. The following re-posts what I just added to the older thread:

Is it just me, or does Peikoff's "explanation" of the context for his ill treatment of McCasky (posted five days ago?) add absolutely nothing of substance to the discussion?

http://www.peikoff.c...i-board-member/

A couple points that occurred to me:

1) Peikoff says that "others" have tried to turn this into a moral issue. What? So, his peremptory bad treatment of McCasky--or how any persons treat others or behave generally--has nothing to do in itself with morality? So much for that intimate connection of ALL "facts" with "values."

2) He admits he has a personal prejudice against McCasky; he dislikes him.

3) He admits that because of his personal prejudice, he never attempted to hash out any intellectual disagreements with his and Harriman's theses.

4) He offers no explanation whatever of what is so "damaging to Objectivism" in McCaskey's unanswered, undiscussed criticisms.

5) He says "God help Objectivism" if people with forums and podcasts are among his critics on this issue that "others" have turned into a moral one. It's a slam at Hsheih.

6) He pretends that letting McCaskey release the memo was his only available option as a public explanation of why he was forcing McCaskey off the ARI board. (Given the weakness of the supplementary "explanation," maybe he's right.)

7) He says McCaskey is a "braggart".... McCaskey? Don't know him. But all these Or-Ob muckamucks seem prone to arrogant prickitudinousness. Leonard, physician, heal thys...

Etc.

That seems like more than a couple. I meant seven. Seven points occurred to me.

Edited by Starbuckle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted Keer wrote: "I really wish you people (and goats) would stop commenting on this. It's a private matter. Only Peikoff can talk about it. Not you."

You are not looking at the essence of the essentials from a properly essentialist aspect. USE YOUR MIND AND YOUR VALUES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is what the Objectivist movement has devoted its energy, people and organization to for the last three (3) decades!

For shame Leonard! For shame!

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have, for years, long before Harriman’s book, condemned McCaskey morally: I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual...

Obnoxious—annoying or offensive

Braggart-somebody who talks immodestly or with excessive pride

Pretentious-demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified

Ignoramus-an extremely ignorant person

I suppose we should assume that McCaskey is, in addition to all that, extremely arrogant. Probably reminds Lenny of that infamous villain, Francisco d'Anconia (except maybe for the ignorant part).

Those are moral criteria?

Is Peikoff completely nuts? (Oh, I think I already asked that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted Keer wrote: "I really wish you people (and goats) would stop commenting on this. It's a private matter. Only Peikoff can talk about it. Not you."

You are not looking at the essence of the essentials from a properly essentialist aspect. USE YOUR MIND AND YOUR VALUES.

I shall, once I have received the proper guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will be issuing condemnations and repudiations every twenty minutes from now until midnight. To apply, please tell me what you did wrong and why, and the nature of your failure to atone.

Does not drowning Leonard Piekoff when I had the chance in the late '60's in NY City count?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does not drowning Leonard Piekoff when I had the chance in the late '60's in NY City count?

You inept, blithering booby. There is no Redemption for you.

Mea Culpa!

Lord Leonard I am not worthy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fresh air:

I really wish you people (and goats) would stop commenting on this. It's a private matter. Only Peikoff can talk about it. Not you.

There is going to come a day when the last person who knew Rand personally and significantly will have died. . . . I expect that with each passing year after that day, the splits between Rand and the Brandens and between Peikoff and Kelley will become a smaller portion of what people attend to in their mining for value in Objectivism. . . .

Edited by Stephen Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This strikes me as very strange. There are only eight ARI Board members left: Michael S. Berliner, Arline Mann, Yaron Brook, Carl Barney, Harry Binswanger, Peter LePort, John B. Ridpath, Tara Smith.

WSS,

Well, Leonard Peikoff is allegedly not on speaking terms with Harry Binswanger.

Who else is he not on speaking terms with?

Robert Campbell

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