A Question about JARS


Recommended Posts

I have a question about JARS, if anyone knows anything. (For example, hint, hint... Robert... :) )

Over on SLOP, Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo said the following in reference to another poster (the very strange Cathcart):

Today we have—what? A version who welcomes the demise of Sciabarra's Journal of anti-Ayn Rand Studies for which he used to write...

This nagged at me a bit, so I tried to look it up. I found nothing about the demise of JARS anywhere.

Knowing as I do how Perigo burns the midnight oil on the backstage gossip and email route, I started to wonder if he actually does know something or if there is some kind of bad faith whispering and "comment in passing" going on to implant an idea in public.

Has anyone heard anything about this? I'm pretty sure that, if there were some substance to it, we would have heard something.

Anyway, that's how lies start. Just exposing what's under the rock to the light of day. Things that live under rocks are usually not very pretty.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm pretty sure that, if there were some substance to it, we would have heard something.

There is something very wrong at the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies; according to the website, no issues have appeared in quite some time.

There is a link on the site mentioning "exciting new developments" -- dated December 17, 2009. The note explains that 'Our Spring 2009 issue is obviously very late, but it should be out to subscribers early in the new year.'

Perigo is a hateful nutcase, yeah, and likely hopes that JARS dies along with the hopes and dreams of its editor, but I doubt that he has based his death wishes on anything other than the facts apparent to all . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

This guy Cathcart is not just a little weird. He's a lot weird.

He just wrote a pretty good method on how to program your subconscious for blanking out. He presented it on a SLOP thread called "New Rules for Rand Criticism" (see here). Essentially, it goes like this: when you encounter someone using the words "Ayn Rand," Objectivism" and whatnot, you try to ascertain whether or not they know Peikoff's stuff. If not, blank them out.

This is no metaphor. This means blank out literally. Like try to expunge them from your subconscious as much as possible and eliminate them from your conscious awareness. Here is a direct quote from the post I mentioned:

Ahhhh, ya see how easy it is to wipe away the otherwise aggravating mainstream and/or second-rate schmutz, once you've integrated and automatized the Rules? Go ahead, it's for your mental health - just wipe away "Gas" Chambers and Anne Hellish and the rest of their rationally-non-integratable ilk from your cognitive field of vision, like so much bug-splat from windshield, and pay them no further heed. It's very refreshing!

This reminds me of Diana Hsieh trying to reprogram her subconscious to stop finding so many things funny and laughing (see here).

This is a trap in Objectivism if you don't watch out, although not all Objectivists fall into it. Rand talked about reprogramming her subconscious. She also hated some things openly. So it is easy to mash these together and hate so much you turn the hatred against your own mind and start messing with it so you no longer perceive correctly or respond naturally.

That's some seriously twisted stuff.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1968 I was reading everything I could about Ayn Rand in the University of Arizona library when I came across the New Yorker review of Atlas Shrugged. The author was attacking AS using humor. It was not a very good review, of course, but I keep laughing to myself reading it--I couldn't stop. According to DH I didn't have the right subconscious filters. If I had I wouldn't have been all but convulsed. In fact, I wondered about whether there was something wrong with me. Fortunately, I didn't install those filters. Unfortunately I had installed some previously which made me wonder in there was something wrong with me. There certainly was: I was two-thirds the way into Randian culthood. The third that was laughing hadn't made it through the gate. Extracting myself psychologically from culthood was a long and arduous process. Today, I'm extracting myself from nationhoodism--that is, from United Statism as opposed to simply being an autonomous American. United Statism is what is, Americanism is what United Statism should be. Or, cannot be; it's the state, after all.

--Brant

government yes, state, no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy Cathcart is not just a little weird. He's a lot weird.

And he was, quite literally, a PARC convertee, right? I remember him writing good stuff many years ago. I just don’t see how anyone intelligent could be taken in by that. I feel the same way about Schwartz’s Libertarianism article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy Cathcart is not just a little weird. He's a lot weird.

And he was, quite literally, a PARC convertee, right? I remember him writing good stuff many years ago. I just don't see how anyone intelligent could be taken in by that. I feel the same way about Schwartz's Libertarianism article.

The bromide applies: It's not how smarts you are, it's how you use them.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That SOLO post was so bad it just has to be fattening.

What does it mean to "understand Ayn Rand"? Why do I need the posthumous rationalizations of a fourth rate mind to understand her?

Why on earth do I need to know 'proper measurement omission' to know that the Randroid's real life opinions are off the deep end?

If a Randroid is getting both "snarky asides and punchy soundbites" someone is giving them twice the respect they deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I need the posthumous rationalizations of a fourth rate mind to understand her?.

Joel -

That is a wonderful question. I've often mulled about the related question: Does anybody really find that those in the Church of the Orthodox ILLUMINE Rand's very clear writing? Did Rand have her faults - yes. But lack of clarity was not one of them.

I'm reminded of a comment made by someone who I don't remember - "The Bible certainly illuminates the commentaries." Work for Rand and those who would "explain her," also.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I need the posthumous rationalizations of a fourth rate mind to understand her?.

Joel -

That is a wonderful question. I've often mulled about the related question: Does anybody really find that those in the Church of the Orthodox ILLUMINE Rand's very clear writing? Did Rand have her faults - yes. But lack of clarity was not one of them.

I'm reminded of a comment made by someone who I don't remember - "The Bible certainly illuminates the commentaries." Work for Rand and those who would "explain her," also.

Bill P

Indeed! Try this for an illustrative experiment: Pick any essay by Rand or Branden from The Virtue of Selfishness or Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal :D on a topic of your choice. Now, go to essays by the ARIans (any ARIans, including Peikoff and the Media Press Releases from ARI) :o:rolleyes: that take up the same subject. Then make a comparison of the writing syle and the clarity of presentation. What we find is a rather alarming decline :blink::wacko::( in "quality control" under the Peikovian "new order."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no great mystery about the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

It has always been primarily the work of Chris Sciabarra. And for over a year Chris's illness took a far worse turn than it had for a long time.

Now that Chris successfully avoided Surgery #8, and expects to be well enough to undergo some other needed medical procedures, JARS will be moving again.

And there are plenty of articles in the pipeline.

It was Chris Cathcart who, without inquiring as to what might be going on, chortled over what he imagined was the demise of JARS.

Lindsay Perigo just picked it up and rechortled it.

Who is left to whisper anything to Perigo backstage?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a good while, I've thought that no one in Rand-land could be crazier than Jim Valliant.

I was wrong.

Chris Cathcart is much crazier than Jim Valliant.

Check this out from his blog post:

As far as I'm concerned, a working familiarity with OPAR only gets you in the front door, onto the consideration list as it were. What would ensure quality control and prima facie status as someone with a clue is a familiarity with Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism course, and a familiarity with his advanced seminar course on OPAR would be a much-desired icing on the cake.

Short of that, it's pretty much a crap shoot whether you're getting commentary from someone with a clue. The minimum qualifications otherwise would make the number of qualified commentators verge on the vanishingly small. It would probably take, at minimum, some advanced training in philosophy, a solid background in Aristotelianism, and a keen awareness of Rand's place in the neo-Aristotelian tradition. Dougs Rasmussen and Den Uyl make the cut. That's about it. The number is frighteningly small in any event.

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is a seriously flawed book. Does Cathcart really want everyone to get a working familiarity with it—or is he hoping for rote memorization and unquestioning agreement with all the contradictions in it?

Understanding Objectivism appears to have been Leonard Peikoff's failed course in self-therapy. I expect Cathcart endlessly promotes it because few outside the ARIan orbit will ever have taken it.

Now, let's look at Cathcart's philosophical exemplars: Doug Rasmussen and Doug Den Uyl.

To my knowledge, both have read OPAR. To my knowledge, neither recommends the book.

And neither of "the Dougs" has taken the Peikoff courses that Cathcart insists are essential.

Uh oh... time to toss them on the same pile as "Hellish" and everyone else Cathcart imagines is emitting "schmutz."

Now, who has read OPAR backwards and forwards, and taken every Peikoff course Cathcart deems essential, along with a bunch of others that Cathcart never got around to?

Chris Sciabarra.

Uh oh...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no great mystery about the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

It has always been primarily the work of Chris Sciabarra. And for over a year Chris's illness took a far worse turn than it had for a long time.

Now that Chris successfully avoided Surgery #8, and expects to be well enough to undergo some other needed medical procedures, JARS will be moving again.

And there are plenty of articles in the pipeline.

It was Chris Cathcart who, without inquiring as to what might be going on, chortled over what he imagined was the demise of JARS.

Lindsay Perigo just picked it up and rechortled it.

Who is left to whisper anything to Perigo backstage?

Robert Campbell

Robert -

Good news on two fronts:

1) It sounds as if Chris got some relatively good news in the health department.

2) The pipeline containing a good supply of articles

Bill P (who has served as an AE for quite a few journals and is used to working/managing the pipeline)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Cathcart is much crazier than Jim Valliant.

I'll buy that idea.

The remnant crabs and cranks at SOLO remind me of folks left over in the wee wee hours after a big party. Among the platters of dried fish paste and gnawed bones and spilled drinks and melted ice-sculptures are a handful of raddled also-rans without taxi fare.

Cathcart has a book "coming soon."

The earth trembles in anticipation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Cathcart is much crazier than Jim Valliant.

I'll buy that idea.

The remnant crabs and cranks at SOLO remind me of folks left over in the wee wee hours after a big party. Among the platters of dried fish paste and gnawed bones and spilled drinks and melted ice-sculptures are a handful of raddled also-rans without taxi fare.

Cathcart has a book "coming soon."

The earth trembles in anticipation.

William:

Is that the glow of the fires of revolutionary anarcho-capitalists in revolt coming from the Utopia that is just around the bend in the canyon?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ MSK -- Michael, I haven't found anything by Cathcart where he chortles over the possible demise of JARS.

@ RC -- Robert, would you please post a link to anything that shows Cathcart to be gloating, salivating, chortling, etc. over the problems of JARS and/or Chris Sciabarra?

Folks, when I started reading Cathcart's pieces on So Low Bashin', I too found them rather twisted and appalling...until I realized/suspected they were meant sarcastically/ironically. Then they made perfect sense. CC was flinging great amounts of stuff in the faces of the folks at Linz-world, as well as at the Eastern Orthodox Church of Objectivism and the Even More Orthodox bunch centered in Irvine, CA.

What tipped me off was his bringing up the Dougs Rasmussen and Den Uyl. Why sing their praises, when they have been so roundly scorned by the lesser lights in the Western O'ist camp? Because, unlike Chris Sciabarra, they have not (yet) been stomped on by either Pope Leonard and his Inner Circle, or by Linz and his Goon Squad.

I could be wrong about all this. He may not be a mole or Independent Objectivist in ARI Clothing. He may be just another weasel-ish sell-out, trying to wriggle up the greasy, pointless totem pole of Objectivist status by playing up to those he thinks are the Main Players. Time will tell.

In the meantime, I find his piece much more entertaining, and accurate, to read as a piece of satire, with his tongue firmly embedded in ~his~ cheek, not ~between~ those of Linz (if you catch my drift).

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starbuckle,

Many places. "Philosophy: Who Needs It," for example:

Your subconscious is like a computer—more complex a computer than men can build—and its main function is the integration of your ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind. If you default, if you don't reach any firm convictions, your subconscious is programmed by chance—and you deliver yourself into the power of ideas you do not know you have accepted. But one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotionswhich are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values.

Obviously, if you can program it, you can reprogram it.

I seriously doubt Rand meant by the above that once you program your subconscious, you are done and a slave from there on out to what you programmed.

In The Romantic Manifesto, Rand also talked about helping a man (Mr. X if I remember correctly) reprogram his subconscious (through music) so he could be happy. He was having an internal short-circuit. She actually mentioned two men, but one was cut out when the book went to press. It's in The Objectivist (or maybe The Objectivist Newsletter) though. I don't think she used the term "reprogram," but conceptually, it's the same thing as she discussed in "The Comprachicos," "Philosophy Who Needs It," etc.

I can find all kinds of stuff, if you like. But it's all kind of obvious, don't you think?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

I found something by Cathcart somewhere discussing the delays at JARS, but it did not seem to warrant Perigo's comment. They might have said something to each other offline.

(NOTE ADDED LATER: I admit that I did not look very hard--I only "skim searched," to be honest.)

As to the weirdness, look at Cathcart's other posts on SLOP. He's not doing satire.

He also has a blog, The Ultimate Philosopher, which oozes with foul language among his discussions of ideas. I tried to read through some if it, but got bored,

If he's doing satire, he's carrying it to his own places of writing and not letting anyone else in on the joke.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Cathcart is much crazier than Jim Valliant.

I'll buy that idea.

The remnant crabs and cranks at SOLO remind me of folks left over in the wee wee hours after a big party. Among the platters of dried fish paste and gnawed bones and spilled drinks and melted ice-sculptures are a handful of raddled also-rans without taxi fare.

Cathcart has a book "coming soon."

The earth trembles in anticipation.

Following William's link you can find this, which (the Ultimate Philosopher is Cathcart himself) speaks for itself:

Top Ten Philosophers

<table xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" cellspacing="0" class="sites-layout-name-one-column sites-layout-hbox" style="width: 1267px; table-layout: fixed; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><tbody><tr><td class="sites-layout-tile sites-tile-name-content-1" style="vertical-align: top; padding-top: 10px; padding-right: 15px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 15px; ">(Not including The Ultimate Philosopher; list created Sept. 2010, updated Oct. 2010.)

1 (tie). Aristotle

1 (tie). Ayn Rand

3. Aquinas

4. David L. Norton

5. Jefferson

6. Locke

7. Spinoza

8. Peikoff

9. Rasmussen and Den Uyl

10. Hegel

Hon. mentions: Socrates, Epicurus, Sade, Thoreau, Spencer, Nietzsche, Mises, Wittgenstein, Hayek, Kaufmann, Mack, Simmons

Clever wankers: Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Heidegger, Nozick, a shit-ton of post-Kant thinkers

Way overrated: Plato, Descartes, Hobbes, Marx, Rawls

Genius but mushy: Jesus

Genius: Stanley Kubrick, Howard Stern</td></tr></tbody></table>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo just came out with this pearl of approval in the direction of Chris Cathcart:

When Campbell was ejaculating its slime on SOLO you were pretty quiet. I'm glad to see you've come to appreciate how calling Campbell slime is unfair to slime. It is beyond unthinkable that this comprachico is in charge of young minds.

This is in response to three posts in a row by Cathcart.

OK...

Let's see the writing that apparently is not "slime" and, presumably, is good for young minds. Let's look at some quotes from those three posts. I will not link to them since they immediately precede the link above (and there is no sense sending more link juice to SLOP to help with its search engine ratings). I will give the name of the posts, though.

Let's start with some excerpts from the first one called "OL":

I see there's some slime and filth going on...

I find it obscene that he [Chris Sciabarra] would publish an article by the widely-acknowledged troll, Slavoj Zizek...

I'll cut the other newbie-looking-types there whatever slack is appropriate; jumping into this stuff mid-stream without a grasp of wider context is rookie error and I don't take it personally.

The essential of all this is how people well-versed in Objectivism should assess the cognitive status of Rand-criticism they encounter. ...

An instructive concrete in this context is Anne Hellish. I mean, just fucking *look* at the cover of her book; it's all you need to know just what the agenda and quality is there; the only people who would get off on it are folks who don't know jackshit about Objectivism. ...

Why should we expect a historian by occupation [Jennifer Burns] to wield the tools necessary to grasp Rand's ideas? ...

Does the person grasp, say, the world-historic import of Rand's theory of concepts? That's a major, centrally-important consideration. MAJOR. CENTRALLY IMPORTANT. ...

Concepts as means to unit-economy is a DAMN IMPORTANT thing for psycho-epistemology and cognition as a whole. How is someone going to grasp such importance without deep familiarity with the relevant literature? How is someone going to recognize the importance of Peikoff's work, otherwise? ...

Whatever else you say about Sciabarra, at least he was serious about this point. At least we know he isn't one of these run-of-the-mill, fly-by-night types who put in a half-assed job of things just so that they can publish a book with "Ayn Rand" in the title.

It's just amazing this stuff even needs to be spelled out.

Well, that was refreshing. I am certain many young minds will find inspiration in it. I believe they should especially beware of becoming a "historian by occupation" if they wish "to wield the tools necessary to grasp Rand's ideas." Historians are too stupid to understand.

:)

(I actually want to lampoon more, but there's too much stuff to lampoon and I've got to get this thing finished.)

Now, moving along, Here are some excerpts from the post titled "Doug":

Well, clearly your tolerance for stench is much greater than mine. I guess there's no penalty for flouting the Rules, other than prolonged exposure to stench. ...

I don't know much Wittgenstein, but I will be curious to find out in X number of years just how her analysis in ITOE stacks up to the Philosophical Investigations in the judgment of the professional mainstream. ...

Usually their ["run-of-the-mill fly-by-night types"] skill level and interest don't go beyond lousy, basically-surface-level impressions of the ethics and politics - all out-of-context 'n' shit, of course.

Of course.

Such wisdom! When I think of all the inquiring young minds who can drink from these waters, I can't help but sigh "'n' shit" (to use a Cathcartian turn of the phrase).

Now for excerpts from the post called "A taste of Campbellian sliminess":

As print materials go, there are three basic sources we have for Objectivism as a theoretical system: (1) Galt's speech, (2) ITOE, (3) OPAR. ...

I certainly think Peikoff's doctrine of the arbitrary is worthy of critical examination given the traditional meaning of truth as correspondence, but in the hands of Prof. Campbell I wouldn't expect anything impressive. What I would recommend, is looking at the fully-authorized discussion of the arbitrary in the Lexicon and comparing it carefully to the OPAR one. ...

This one, though, is downright slimy: ...

It gets even slimier: ...

I don't even know what to say to this other than that it's flush-able. ...

It's nuts that I'd have to spell all that out. I mean, shit, the whole reason Peikoff wrote OPAR was to raise the bar for Rand studies without scholars having to buy the course. ...

Campbell's credibility as an associate editor of a FUCKING JOURNAL ON RAND STUDIES FOR CRYING OUT LOUD is severely hampered by lack of familiarity with the advanced Peikoff courses. ...

Campbell really went into the gutter when he accused scholars like Tara Smith of intellectual dishonesty for not including Branden in her discussion of self-esteem and relying for input on Rand's best student and chosen heir instead. Really fucking slimy and reckless MO there. ...

Well, there you have it. A new philosophical style of writing and thinking for a new heroic age of Objectivism by an Objectivist hero who claims the philosophy holds "MAJOR. CENTRALLY IMPORTANT" ideas for the world.

Taking a lead from Perigo, this is definitely not slime. This is writing by a self-proclaimed Objectivist philosopher at its finest. I think the guy should go into teaching young minds about Objectivism. And his opinions should be drawn up as "rules." (Oops... he already did that...) Ayn Rand would not have been prouder than to have such an ambassador. And, just imagine, these excerpts are tame and logical compared to some of his other writing.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

You can see how fascinated I am with Chris Cathcart's latest mumbles and blurts. I haven't been paying much attention to OL for a few days. As for SOLOP ... why bother when there's paint to be found drying?

Here's a passage from one of Cathcart's three posts (the one titled "OL") that you didn't fully excerpt:

In retrospect, I find it obscene that [Chris Sciabarra] would publish an article by the widely-acknowledged troll, Slavoj Zizek; further, I take serious exception to an editorial policy that admits for [the] publication [of] pieces like the one to which I had responded in that journal.

Mr. Cathcart's one article in JARS appeared in 2006. It was a response to "Egoism versus Rights," by a philosophy professor named Robert H. Bass:

http://www.aynrandst...7_n2/7_2toc.asp

At the time, Cathcart didn't merely refrain from objecting to the decision to publish Bass's article. He talked up his many online dialogues with "Rob" Bass and praised this piece in particular.

Now he's blaming Chris Sciabarra for publishing it?

That's all anyone ever will ever need to know about Chris Cathcart.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ RC -- Robert, would you please post a link to anything that shows Cathcart to be gloating, salivating, chortling, etc. over the problems of JARS and/or Chris Sciabarra?

Roger,

Chris Cathcart made a remark on SOLOP, within the last 3 weeks, in which he claimed that nothin' was happnin' outside the precincts of the Ayn Rand Institute and the Ayn Rand Society. I recall a charge that The Atlas Society is no longer doing anything except paying the salaries of its employees and a charge that JARS must be dying because nothing's been published for a while. By contrast, ARI's being incredibly productive, as can be gauged from The Logical Leap, etc. There was no mention of Chris Sciabarra's health.

But I didn't link it when I saw it, and the search function on SOLOP is atrocious.

The more recent Cathcartian rants that Michael referred to are loaded with condemnation for JARS and Sciabarra.

I've never been under the impression that Cathcart is pulling anyone's leg. He's a genuine Loony Tune.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because SOLOP's resident nutcase continues to blather about my alleged misrepresentations of Rand's spoken answers to questions, and cites as authoritative Bob Mayhew's purported refutation on NoodleFood, I refer anyone who is actually interested in what Ayn Rand said during her question and answer periods to an established thread, with 527 posts on it, right here at OL:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801

I would normally criticize anyone who recommends Mayhew's piece for refusing to respond to the particulars presented in The Rewrite Squad, but there is little point in chastising a complete loon.

Robert Campbell

PS. A careful reader of Mayhew's piece will be interested to find that Mayhew never quotes a single concrete example of his own editing.

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