Harriman/ARI and/or Peikoff rift?


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

I agree that Rand hasn't been damaged politically by the affair or the resulting splits/shitstorms. No one is trying to invalidate her politics based on her sex life. The only damage caused by her affair, her treatment of her husband, and her vindictiveness (and lies) against the Brandens, has been to people's judgments of her theories and opinions on psychology, sexuality, gender, romantic love, etc. I think that most people who are familiar with her views on those subjects now recognize what a mess of a fucked up fantasy world she was living in, that she was far from identifying the realities of her own life, motives and actions much less of coming up with any objective theories that were applicable to all humans.

Jonathan,

Not just politically. Rand has not been damaged philosophically, artistically, in terms of popularity as a cultural icon, in persuasion other than political, and so on.

I would even go so far as to say her personal reputation has not been damaged.

Sure, there are some people who hold strongly worded negative views like you just expressed, but I just don't see it come up that way in the mainstream.

I don't see any effects of damage at all.

One thing did get damaged: an attempt to create a "Rand as morally perfect woman" myth. But that was not a real Ayn Rand to damage. It was just a made-up story promoted by people who wanted to believe it despite evidence to the contrary. In fact, some people still want to believe it, but that doesn't blank out facts anywhere but in their skulls.

So, yeah, that false myth got damaged--meaning the people who want to propagate it as truth get laughed at more than anything else when they try. But that did not reflect on Rand herself from the perspective of her position in the world. I see her work having a strong impact on society. And that's saying something considering her main competition is a bunch of pervasive mainstream religions that are centuries old and Karl Marx (and related).

I just don't see how Barbara's book, or even Nathaniel's books, damaged her.

Maybe I'm being a little too picky by wanting something concrete in the mainstream to support the abstraction of "damage"?

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 253
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Amy Peikoff needs to stay off social media and Internet Objectivist postings until she knows much more than she does.

--Brant

Today while looking at the facebook comments, I was thinking that anyone who has a drawing of themselves done by amateurish artist/hater Bosch Fawstin that they use as their user or cover photo probably needs to learn a lot more about a lot of things before opining on anything.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't see how Barbara's book, or even Nathaniel's books, damaged her.

I don't know how you'd go about measuring and proving it, but I think that TheBrandens™ books helped Rand much more than they hurt her.

And Randroids hurt their cause much more than they help it. The most common public gripe about Objectivism and Objectivists is they are a cult made up of nutjobs who worship Ayn Rand instead of God. The loony shit -- over Harriman or Brook or anyone else paying respects to Barbara or being friends with someone outside of the approve list or just politely saying hi and having a brief conversation with someone else's "enemy" -- does way more damage than anything TheBrandens™ ever did. It becomes yet more evidence of the claim that Objectivism is a fruit farm cult.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today while looking at the facebook comments, I was thinking that anyone who has a drawing of themselves done by amateurish artist/hater Bosch Fawstin that they use as their user or cover photo probably needs to learn a lot more about a lot of things before opining on anything.

J

Amy and Bosch were, as far as I know, still are, a romantic item.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how you'd go about measuring and proving it, but I think that TheBrandens™ books helped Rand much more than they hurt her.

Jonathan,

I do, too.

I know some people would disagree with that, but in my studies of persuasion, it's almost a universal law that credibility--especially the perception of it--is a major factor for a persuader to be effective.

The image of an all-perfect Rand (with maybe a few insignificant blemishes) promoted by doublespeak, excommunications and hostility is not credible (except for fundies) no matter how you cook it.

Ironically, Barbara and Nathaniel, by getting all the crap out into the open for everyone to see and opine on it, greatly enhanced Rand's credibility with the public at large. (Not that of some of her followers, though. :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be. However, Peikoff has a history of breaking off being on speaking terms with persons who disagree with him on whatever. He isn't on speaking terms with about half of the board of directors. So the issue might not be one of behavior.

Another possibility is Harriman's being friends with David Kelley. First I've ever heard that.

Ellen

I know about Peikoff's history, but that's not inconsistent with my speculation. Rather, I think that Peikoff sees any disagreement as a challenge to his authority, and subsequently, as a threat to his status in the movement. Especially when the challenge comes from one of his favored "followers", because their defection presents a more or less legitimate alternative to other important objectivists. Peikoff is quick to excommunicate them because he always has someone else ready to take their place. That Harriman was friends with Kelley would only make him appear to be an even greater threat.

In short, I think Harriman was probably working with Kelley to unseat Peikoff. But Peikoff manipulates all of his close friends by looming the constant threat of excommunication over their heads. Harriman's friendship with Kelley would mean that Peikoff felt that he was losing control over him, and he then became the latest victim of Peikoff's wrath. His excommunication sends the message to the rest of Peikoff's followers.

If David Kelley were a physicist I'd be concerned with such a friendship, but since he's a philosopher I'd be only concerned for him--if they're friends, that is.

--Brant

Naomi,

Agreed that Peikoff's history isn't inconsistent with your speculation. It would even mesh with it, as you go on to elaborate.

One detail, I didn't see anything to the effect that Harriman's actually been "excommunicated," or indeed anything about Peikoff's commenting.

I'm not on Facebook, so can't read material which requires Facebook membership.

Has there been a report - does anyone know - of Peikoff saying anything about Harriman?

Brant raises an issue which had meanwhile occurred to me. Did Harriman specifically say that he and Kelley are friends, or just that he'd gone to the memorial to meet up with Kelley and have dinner with him afterward?

As to Kelley's making some attempt "to unseat Peikoff," I think this isn't within the bounds of Kelley's character. I haven't seen him in 14 years, and have only indirectly heard of his doings, but I don't think he'd have changed that much as to be plotting some sort of unseating of Peikoff with Harriman.

On the other hand, I do find the thought of his being friends with Harriman unpleasant. (Intellectual standards, David!)

I'm hoping to learn more in the way of facts.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] Did Harriman specifically say that he and Kelley are friends, or just that he'd gone to the memorial to meet up with Kelley and have dinner with him afterward?

OK, I've discovered that there were about 70 posts on the Epstein thread which I didn't see, since I didn't realize that what was displayed when I first looked wasn't the complete set.

Among those posts is a link to Judd Weiss' photo of Harriman and Harriman's wife at the memorial.

Among the posts commenting is one by Harriman in which he refers to Kelley as his and his wife's "friend."

link

I didn't know Barbara Branden. Coral and I attended the memorial mainly to meet our friend, David Kelley, and have dinner with him afterwards.

March 18 at 6:14pm

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I was going to get that link to you last night, but a glitch happened with my router so I couldn't post. By the time I fixed it, I had forgotten.

But that's why the Harriman thing is causing such an uproar whereas the photo of Yaron Brook talking to Nathaniel Branden is not so much (you can see the picture on Judd's blog here--scroll down, and here on Facebook).

Here (Facebook link) is what Judd said about that picture:

I was being a playful asshole when I introduced Yaron to Nathaniel at the party I hosted for Peter Schiff. I said to Yaron with a big smile:

"I want you to meet someone. He used to have your position. This is a Nathaniel Branden."

Yaron certainly wasn't expecting to meet Nathaniel, he was a little startled, but respectful. The party was very busy, so I moved on and didn't hear their conversation. They were politely chatting for about 30 minutes. Yaron certainly has reservations about Nathaniel that I'm well aware of, but he was perfectly civil and polite. Nathaniel hasn't been doing very well health wise, he has been having a hard time expressing himself, and Yaron was very patient about it. I came back around after about 20 minutes or so, with a big smile on my face, put my arm around Yaron's shoulder and said:

"It warms my heart so much to see you two being friendly. Anything is possible."

Yaron tried to hold back a smile but couldn't help it as he gave me a look that clearly communicated "You bastard".

Ha!


Yaron simply reacted to the "enemy" and was gracious because of Nathaniel's health. He did not act, like Harriman did in seeking David Kelley out and calling him a friend.

Besides, Yaron is the leader of the tribe (prime minister to Peikoff's king status :smile: ) and it is very, very hard for leaders to do wrong in tribal mentalities.

Anyway, that entire post bears reading. In fact, the entire thread is a great read. Ditto for Judd's blog post.

This young man is doing a world of good for O-Land.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today while looking at the facebook comments, I was thinking that anyone who has a drawing of themselves done by amateurish artist/hater Bosch Fawstin that they use as their user or cover photo probably needs to learn a lot more about a lot of things before opining on anything.

J

Amy and Bosch were, as far as I know, still are, a romantic item.

Ellen

Epstein has a Fawstin drawing of himself too.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harriman says that his wife says that he looks a bit like Liam Neeson, but with better hair.

I think he looks more like the actor John Wood, who played Falken in War Games.

John-Wood-007.jpeg

J

Do you want to play a game?
Global thermonuclear war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The “Brandens” did not damage Ayn Rand’s personal reputation. Rand did that herself. The “Brandens” explained the inexplicable and stopped a re-write of history by Rand and her new inner circle. Her next inner circle – including the people who truly thought of themselves as Students of Objectivism - craved to know the truth, as we still do today. I would not want anyone to invade my privacy but Barbara and Nathaniel Branden were invited in and then publicly cast out with half lies and little truth. People always have divided loyalties with ANY two people they care about, yet Rand thought the Branden’s were on her side even after the cooling of the affair, and the disrespect Rand had shown to Barbara Branden. It is barely conceivable that Rand could not see split loyalties or the harm done to Frank and Barbara.

I agree that Rand’s philosophical reputation is not harmed, except for those aspects of it that involve personal relationships and love. She gave her “Students” so much and she hurt us so much, but history will always prefer a dash of spice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone named Christian Wernstedt says in part on the Epstein Facebook thread:

link

[bold emphasis added]

[....]

Especially telling is ARI "intellectuals'" outright or tacit support of Checking Premises and its atrocious perversions of Objectivism, as well as the mistreatment of Craig Biddle and McCaskey. All of this while failing to ferret out a bad apple like Harriman.

Meanwhile, the structure largely drives out thinking and innovating individuals whose opinions differ from the party line. This while cheering on scientific and scholarly mediocrity, including the production of outright baffling essays like Harriman's flawed writings about modern physics, and the formulaic output of the ARC.

The end result is the dominance of Peikoff's altar boys (poorly selected at that) and anyone carefully towing the party line, while anyone with half of a brain and intellectual integrity is driven out. (The line up of disgruntled subject matter experts has now grown to a mini-movement in its own right.)

As a particularly relevant example, Harriman, encouraged by Peikoff's protective umbrella, sustained a hostile posture against anyone criticizing his non objective writings, which resulted in the alienation (if not outright ousting) of most every Objectivist with a professional physics background.

These are the true roots of the current scandal, and I am certain that several people within ARI saw this coming (in principle, but not necessarily re specifics) but that they shut up in fear of rocking the boat.

The fact is that Harriman should have been ousted years ago, but instead, he received generous grants (likely close to a million dollars), and was allowed to associate Objectivism with crackpot views with regard to modern science.

Many of the people who are "shocked" and outraged now were the same people who who would vigorously defend Harriman for the duration of his corrupt reign as "physics-God" (Peikoff's designation) within Objectivist officialdom.

[....]

And all this at a time when there's genuine corruption and eroding of scientific integrity, and when ARI could have been helpful if the real scientists interested in Objectivism had been encouraged instead of driven out.

I hate it when I go to conferences pertaining to climate issues - where there are professional scientists who are open to learning about Objectivism - and I see the ARI booth displaying a stack of copies of The Logical Leap. I've done one-on-one 'splaining to several of the prominent anti-alarmists, but I bet there are others who have looked through the book and drawn "kook" conclusions.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Judd Weiss' thread where he posted the David and Coral Harriman photo:

Rick Wilmes asks:

link

[....]

My unresolved questions center around the similarities and differences between the Brook-Branden picture and the picture of Harriman and the Branden memorial.

As I understand it, based on your responses, the Branden-Brook picture was planned and staged. It put Brook in an awkward position which you seemed to take pleasure in.

Based on your answers to my questions, that was not the case concerning the Harriman picture. It seems to me, based on your account, he approached you first and than the picture was taken.

Is this an accurate summary?

March 24 at 6:26pm

Judd Weiss replies in the next comment:

Pretty much. I didn't plan or stage anything, but Yaron didn't expect to meet Nathaniel. I was very happy to see them speaking, let alone very friendly and polite. Yaron had no idea I took his photo with Nathaniel. I've never implied otherwise. It does demonstrate that we can in fact be civil among each other.

David Harriman did reach out to me, and followed my instruction as I posed him for his shot.

March 24 at 6:35pm

So Harriman asked to have the photo taken? The photo is obviously posed.

Looks as if Harriman wanted to have the photo made public.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amusing.

This was linked to by Robin Craig from the photo thread:

link

Don't get me wrong. I think Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand) is the best philosophy since before sliced bread. But it does attract its share of people who think that it's their way or the highway. Now I am all for not tolerating immorality or evasion of reality. What I am not for is defining immorality or evasion as not agreeing with what is manifestly obvious (to, well, me).

Jesus, sometimes you can't even go to a funeral without someone jumping down your throat if it's the wrong person's funeral or you have a friend whom all sane people would shun because we've never met them.

Ellen

PS: My question is the reverse of the one the fundies are asking. I wonder what Kelley is doing being friends with Harriman (if indeed Kelley considers Harriman a friend).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: My question is the reverse of the one the fundies are asking. I wonder what Kelley is doing being friends with Harriman (if indeed Kelley considers Harriman a friend).

Yeah, it's like being pals with Lysenko. WTF?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there ever been an article written from the perspective of people who were Students of Objectivism at the time of the Rand – Branden split? I remember living in Charlottesville, and two people were willing to discuss it though we did not know the truth at that time. I rebuffed them but I do not know why (except I could not stop looking at one man’s wife which made me uncomfortable and her also, though she also was willing to discuss the split. I was 18 at the time and an idiot.) Several others who were leaders and associates of the campus Objectivist group refused to discuss it. One of the leaders literally walked away from me. I could have used some support but . . . I should have done something other than write a letter to Ayn Rand. I think I severed all ties to Objectivist “persons” when I went into the Army and after I was discharge, though I kept receiving “The Objectivist Forum.” And sometime in the late seventies I saw an advertisement for Laissez Faire Books and I remember actually speaking to a very nice lady on the phone who may have co-owned the book store. It was So long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a fun post by someone name Gretchen Thomas.

Thomas says that "Nathaniel Branden cheated on Ayn with another woman...".
Heh. I didn't realize that Branden and Rand had sworn oaths of exclusivity to each other, and had forsaken all others (except for their spouses?). When did that happen? When did Branden become contractually obligated to be monogamous with Rand?
J
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judd Weiss referred to B. Branden as a slut, and now to himself as an . . . . Why ever would a normal person attend a cocktail party put on by this fellow? Does he have money? David Kelley attended---good grief. I see one Peter Schiff spoke there and that he has lots of money. Perhaps most people there were pretty much in the dark concerning the character Judd Weiss and just came there to mix with others of more substance (and/or of big money).

I agree with those in this thread who question any significant damage to the reputation of Rand or to the perceived merit of her philosophy by Ms. Branden’s biography informing people of the affair between Ayn and Nathan. There was nothing wrong with that affair, and likely something very right.* Opponents of Rand’s philosophy would anyway be finding ad hominem arguments against the philosophy if they are opponents that incapable of real philosophic criticism. As to the concern of Alex in the root of his thread, although I’ve not read The Passion of Ayn Rand, I’m sure any misrepresentations therein were minor compared to the misrepresentation Barbara and Nathan pulled for some time on Rand concerning his shift of romantic feeling away from Ayn, a misrepresentation notable by its absence in Alex’s bill of grievances.*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own The Logical Leap by David Harriman, but I haven't read it yet.

From what I gather of the criticism, critics bash him on his history of science, not on his conclusions of method as they apply to science. (And it seems like this book is getting some traction as a kind of self-help book on teaching science.)

Two qualifications: (1) I am referring to serious critics and not people engaged in defending/attacking Objectivism, nor am I considering a kerfuffle over first-level concepts that appears more like a turf war over who gets to say what Rand meant than an actual treatment of the material in Harriman's book. (2) I only skimmed the discussions on this, so I might have missed something in my overall view.

That said, here's what it sounds like to me so far:

Harriman: Here's what I've got.

Response: Cool. Something good to look at and go into more.

Harriman: Here's how we got there.

Response: Er... you might want to check some of that stuff.

Whether Harriman is or will be excommunicated or not, Peikoff did write the Introduction to the book. I have not seen an opinion on that Introduction so far, but I think it's fair to say this book represented what Peikoff considered to be good and true at the time he wrote the Introduction. I doubt he has changed his views, but who knows with him?

I'm going to end up reading that thing to get my own opinion on it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why ever would a normal person attend a cocktail party put on by this fellow?

Judd Weiss said, "the party I hosted for Peter Schiff" (my bold). Schiff is a financial guy and gets a lot of media attention about economics. He has a very Austrian perspective.

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