The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Maybe Objectivism needs to institute a statute of limitations. It's funny, I used to think the Objectivist movement would get tamer with the Internet because control of information and ostracism are no longer the effective weapons they once were. Now, it's the flame wars and reputation attacks. In the 1990's the divisiveness was much healthier because it actually spurred people to write principled arguments about the divisions. The divisions were addressed in philosophical terms.

I actually think the seeds of the devolution of the arguments into personality issues happened before SOLO and PARC with the renaming of Truth and Toleration as the The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand. I know it was not David Kelley's intention, but suddenly the issues were repersonalized on all sides.

The Objectivist Movement is now in a war of attrition over a "contested legacy". Alternate histories of the Objectivist Movement are spun and people fight over it. Scholars fight over access to the Archives and there is whitewashing of history. On the other side there is a sensationalism of history.

There is now an opportunity for all sides to sit back and reflect. Do we really want to fight over a "contested legacy"? I think at this point most of the relevant information is out there and people can make up their own minds.

We now have an opportunity to do something different. In the words of Robert Noyce: Don't be encumbered by history, go off and do something wonderful.

Jim

[Robert Campbell]

Here's my response to Ellen Stuttle, recently posted over yonder.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6242#comment-72227

Talk about triviality...

Robert Campbell

I was traveling nearly all day yesterday. I didn't see Ellen Stuttle's PM till about an hour ago, but wouldn't have considered it urgent even if I'd seen it right after it was sent.

Ms. Stuttle did not have the apparently unique experience of receiving a Peikoff-to-Wales email out of the blue. If she had, she would of course have been free to respond to it any way she wanted.

Anyhow, here's my response to the PM:

*************

Ellen,

Huh?

Maybe I shouldn't have used an indirect speech act.

But where I live, "I received this item earlier today and would like to make sure that it came from you" is a polite way of saying, "Tell me whether this damn thing's for real."

Would you fault someone for asking "Do you know the time?" because the answer he got was "Yes"?

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I just had one of the weirdest damn visions...

Imagine a world in which Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo was not gay and Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle was not married.

What one lacks, the other tends to have, so I saw a conjugal union in my vision—with true connubial bliss for the long haul...

And it feels right on a gut level.

Dayaamm!

Michael

[Michelle]

Robert,

I just had one of the weirdest damn visions...

Imagine a world in which Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo was not gay and Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle was not married.

What one lacks, the other tends to have, so I saw a conjugal union in my vision—with true connubial bliss for the long haul...

And it feels right on a gut level.

Dayaamm!

Michael

He's homosexual?

[Robert Campbell]

In the 1990's the divisiveness was much healthier because it actually spurred people to write principled arguments about the divisions. The divisions were addressed in philosophical terms.

Jim,

Arguments were indeed produced, but it's not clear how much new philosophy got done.

"Fact and Value" is pretty thin and sloppy, even compared to the latter-day Peikovian norm. On the issue of arbitrariness, it actually contradicts other work that Dr. Peikoff was doing around that time.

"Truth and Toleration" (aka "Contested Legacy") is better as philosophy, but it doesn't break a lot of ground. Under different circumstances, there would have been little need for David Kelley to spend much time on it.

The underlying problem is that Ayn Rand, in some of her writings and utterances, encouraged people to weld into her body of ideas a belief in their author's personal moral perfection.

There's no easy way around this: you either reject the claim of moral perfection; you reject its purported relevance to her ideas; or you accept the claim and its purported relevance.

You're right that assertions about her personal moral perfection are often employed to excuse personal feuds and organizational power-grabs. (Does anyone think that what keeps Lindsay Perigo running is a sincere belief in Ayn Rand's moral perfection?) But the weapon lies ready for the using, out here in Rand-land.

Robert Campbell

[kiaer.ts]

Robert,

I just had one of the weirdest damn visions...

Imagine a world in which Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo was not gay and Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle was not married.

What one lacks, the other tends to have, so I saw a conjugal union in my vision—with true connubial bliss for the long haul...

And it feels right on a gut level.

Dayaamm!

Michael

He's homosexual?

Gooble gobble! Gooble gobble!

[Rich Engle]

Don't lower yourselves, boys. His persuasion doesn't matter, it never does, even if it is true that there is nothing sadder than an old queer.

That's not the point.

[Michelle]

Robert,

I just had one of the weirdest damn visions...

Imagine a world in which Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo was not gay and Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle was not married.

What one lacks, the other tends to have, so I saw a conjugal union in my vision—with true connubial bliss for the long haul...

And it feels right on a gut level.

Dayaamm!

Michael

He's homosexual?

Gooble gobble! Gooble gobble!

I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate.

[Robert Campbell]

I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate.

Lindsay Perigo is openly gay; has been for years.

When he was still on good terms with Chris Sciabarra, he encouraged Chris to write this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Homosexuali...n/dp/0958457336

His hatred of Regi Firehammer stems primarily from Mr. Firehammer's unrepentant homophobia, though when Mr. Perigo was allied with Diana Hsieh, he somehow never made a big issue of her declaration that being gay is "unfortunate and sub-optimal."

Robert C

[Rich Engle]

Exactly, Bob.

I'm not even sure it's good to use Perigo and Sciabarra in the same sentence. Big difference! Chris has always been the consumate gentleman, and for sure a better scholar.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

That gobble gobble stuff could be a reference to a horrible piece of writing I once did called "In Praise of Objectivist Turkey" or something like that. (I's on the forum, but I won't even link to that one. I was trying to experiment with weaving certain images throughout my text to highlight an emotional impact along with the facts. I didn't pull it off too well. I'm a late-bloomer as a writer. I essentially started writing steadily in my 50's, so I lay an egg once in a while. It comes with the territory of beginning...)

To answer your question, yes, Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo is gay. (Edit: My post crossed with Robert's.) Not only is he gay, he is openly gay. Back when he was still viably contending for the title of "Objectivist Leader," he set up a public campaign to change Objectivism so that it could include gay people without contention. Correct Ayn Rand, so to speak. (His effort was even advertised like that: to correct Ayn Rand.)

The rub, of course, is that he teamed up with a highly intelligent and scholarly individual named Chris Sciabarra, who had previously written a magnificently researched and documented work on Rand entitled: Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical and almost single-handedly kicked off Rand's acceptance in the academic world by getting a publication he founded Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, both referenced in official academic organizations and held in high enough esteem to gather a wonderful list of prestigious academic authors. (btw - Robert is one of the editors of JARS.)

The orthodoxy HATED Chris since he did not worship Rand (JARS, gasp, even publishes criticism of her and promotes debate of her ideas instead of preaching for people to swallow them whole) and he took the Brandens seriously as part of the history and ideas of Objectivism.

He also suggested that the way Rand approached ideas (in a dialectical manner) produced a knee-jerk reaction and, without understanding what he meant, they accused him of trying to equate Rand's manner of thinking to that of Karl Marx.

Chris is also gay and when Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo leaned on him back then, the gay screw was one he twisted with great effect. Chris wrote many things for him for free, including essays in praise of Mario Lanza (Perigo's other god). He even got Chris to cry while presenting him with a Lanza recording in person, then wrote about the mutual blubbering as "The Flood" or some such nonsense. I can almost see him air-conducting and playing every gay persuasion card he had in the deck at the time.

Anyway, they did a project which Chris wrote and he promoted called Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Liberation. There was even a conservative on the fringe of the Objectivist world, Reginald Firehammer, who published a book about hijacking the philosophy. It essentially contested Chris's and was negative on homosexuality. This provided the kind of scapegoat Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo loves—since his opponent was not famous, not convincing, and was on the side of the issue that could be easily accused as bigoted. He used his trashing of Firehammer as easy proof that he was changing the face of the world, blow by blow (yada yada yada).

The problem with getting close to Perigo is that you are not allowed to question his character any longer. But Chris did, especially with respect to Perigo's repeated crybaby outbursts of bullying others, and expressed some doubts in emails to people he cared about. One person who was once close to Chris provided Perigo with a copy and he went nuts. Chris had also privately called Diana Hsieh a dogmatist (which she is) to this same person and she went nuts. So Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo teamed up with Hsieh and they set out on a smear campaign which was unbelievable in the level of kindergarten infancy. Hsieh, who is not a half-bad writer when she is good, wrote a crybaby screed that made my "Turkey" essay look like sparkling prose by comparison. It went on and on and one to the tune of "I am betrayed." (The real thing was that she needed to make a public break with Chris—the nastier the better—to show her new masters at ARI that she really did have a change of heart and was willing to smear former friends in puiblic to prove it.) They milked this moment for as much as they could get out of it and called Chris every name in the book.

This controversy, total misrepresentation of his words, cussing piled on top of cussing, and violation of his privacy hurt Chris so deeply that he stopped all posting on forums (he was a blazing rising star in the libertarian community—he is presently still a star, a distant star that shines clear beautiful light, although much less than its potential) and cut off the majority of his email communications to everybody. Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo's catch-phrase back then was there would be "a whole lot of shakin' going on" in the Objectivist-libertarian world. The shaking proved to be that Chris doubted his character and that of Hsieh in private, as if the world over gives a damn, and they trashed him in public on a level usually reserved for serial killers and child rapists.

This they did to one of the most caring and sweet and intelligent individuals who ever walked this earth—one who helped them both greatly get their projects off the ground and got nothing but spittle for it in return.

What Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo did to Barbara Branden after she questioned his character was on the same level and continues to this day. The reason I wrote my hapless essay was to report on one of the more boneheaded happenings in the Objectivist subcommunity. Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo embraced PARC as a reaction to being rejected by Barbara, although he claims to this day he was just being rational. Since nobody except a few orthodox-leaning people and/or Branden haters took the book seriously back then (and that is still the case), but Valliant and his clique-claque were discussing it wherever they could, this resulted in a serious audience problem for Perigo. People started getting bored and drifting away.

Then TAS staged a public seminar and even invited Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo to give a talk. At first he accepted, but then tried to force TAS to get behind PARC and start bashing Barbara by threatening to cancel. TAS did not cave in and cancel he did. But, Barbara and Nathaniel were scheduled to talk there. So Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo traveled halfway across the world to the neighborhood where that event was being staged to speak at a PARC book-signing in a bookstore nearby. The idea was to create controversy, get some of his audience back, even if he had to leech it from the TAS event, and try to disrupt Barbara and Nathaniel's talks. He totally layed an egg and did not disrupt anything at all. Only a handful of people showed up (a very small handful at that). Barbara gave one of the best speeches of her life (The Objectivist Rage speech) and was roundly applauded with a standing ovation (except by a tiny number of Branden haters). My "Turkey" essay was a report on all that. (Incidentally, the facts are correct in the essay, but the style is a misfire.)

There are links to all this stuff all over the forum. I hope this helped your understanding a bit. But it's uglier and far more petty than what I gave. One of the reasons I started making a public issue of standing up to bullies as strongly as I now do is to take the covers off all the petty hatred and cheap vanity that is parading around in our subcommunity calling itself "justice" and doing other crap like that.

If you want to learn more, I suggest you get other perspectives on all this, then come to your own conclusions.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Michelle,

That gobble gobble stuff could be a reference to a horrible piece of writing I once did called "In Praise of Objectivist Turkey" or something like that. (I's on the forum, but I won't even link to that one. I was trying to experiment with weaving certain images throughout my text to highlight an emotional impact along with the facts. I didn't pull it off too well. I'm a late-bloomer as a writer. I essentially started writing steadily in my 50's, so I lay an egg once in a while. It comes with the territory of beginning...)

Come on, pay attention. I said "gooble gobble" not "gobble gobble." I suggest you google the phrase (don't goggle it ) and then reread the post.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

LOL...

Dayaamm...

I should have kept my mouth shut. Now you might go look up my essay...

I did Google your phrase. I am having a thick senior moment, but I think you are making reference to a 1932 horror film: Freaks.

I found a video on YouTube of the Gooble Gobble scene ("We accept her. We accept her, gooble gobble, gooble gobble. One of us. One of us. We accept her. We accept her, gooble gobble, gooble gobble. One of us. One of us...")

It actually does fit this mess at a gut feeling level. Plop Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo and Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle in the middle of that party and you have a most fitting toast to the virtual wedding between the two I imagined....

Michael

[Selene]

Nice pick Ted - and I have only seen it once, strange film.

Have you guys seen Nightmare Alley?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOFkmDnn2gY <<<<this scene is 10 minutes but phenomenal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare_Alley_(film)

[Rich Engle]

Well, ~I~ got it.

Not to be confused with goober gobbling or blow-by-blow fights.

There, I feel better now.

Thanks MSK for that much needed sypnosis about Chris Sciabarra. That debacle was probably the most embarrassing thing I've ever experienced in O-world.

r

[Robert Campbell]

SOLOP has started behaving hinkily, deleting prior posts when you make a new one.

It's already eaten my second response to Ellen Stuttle about "misleading" people.

So as a precautionary measure, I'm going to cross-post here:

James Valliant on the Mend

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Mon, 2009-06-08 17:27.

Mr. Valliant must be doing a little better, because he has returned to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Objectiv...pt_at_a_Summary

May I ask for that "summary"? Per consensus, may the Valliant book be cited or used at Wikipedia outside of the Bibliography? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

This is the letter sent to Mr. Wales from Ayn Rand heir, Leonard Peikoff, PhD, on May 29, 2009 (posted with his permission here):

[same text as previously posted at SOLOP--RLC]

Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

Incidentally, the Wikipedia biography of Peikoff currently reads: "Kelley has worked with the libertarian movement in the United States and other groups with which Peikoff refused to associate. Nathaniel Branden, whom Rand herself had publicly repudiated, later joined with David Kelley and The Objectivist Center. This resulted in a number of members ending their own association with Kelley's group.[citation needed]" The needed citation, of course, are the numerous statements of scholars and writers influenced by 'The Passion of Ayn Rand;'s Critics.' This is bizarre, as most did not leave until they read Valliant's book. Have you decided to omit history as well? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

Valliant's eyewitness testimony re Rothbard, the actual Rand notes themselves, his arguments -- whatever the positive Kirkus Review said about it the book -- the impact of the book on scholars within the movement, are all censored, while the factually dubious works of Walker, Shermer, Rothbard, Ellis, and the Brandens are not? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

Far more shocking is the silence of all those (still) associated with David Kelley's group -- since Kelley had overtly called for such a debate about B. Branden's work in his initial attack on ARI. Here, a detailed reply, complete with Rand's own notes is published, and they stand silent after trumpeting the alleged silence of their opponents(!) Of course, this excludes those scholars who left association with TAS ~ because ~ of PARC.

Walker? He spread total nonsense. There is no reason to treat PARC differently from the Brandens' works. Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009.

Mr. Parille has evaded every response by Valliant to each of his nonsensical assertions about the book. His dishonesty and evasion should be ignored, it is baseless in every case. Some of what he writes (take #5) has absolutely nothing to do with the book in question, and illustrate here his wild animus against Rand and Peikoff, which are well-known. No one is likely to waste time or effort responding to a truly "unreliable" source. Pelagius1 (talk) 8 June, 2009.

*************

The smarm and sleaze are wholly characteristic.

Note, too, how Mr. Valliant falsely alleges that a bunch of "scholars" left TAS because Mr. Valliant's opus revealed unto them the error of their ways.

I know of one person who left TAS on account of Mr. Valliant's book: Bill Perry. I believe that because Bill told me he had left for that reason, and said so here as well.

I once unwisely stated that Michelle Fram Cohen had left on account of the book. She indignantly denied it.

Who else?

Obviously, Mr. Valliant has regained enough energy to start telling lies again.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

SOLOP has started behaving hinkily, deleting prior posts when you make a new one.

It's already eaten my second response to Ellen Stuttle about "misleading" people.

So as a precautionary measure, I'm going to cross-post here:

Robert,

Why, as a matter of fact, someone on SLOP did delete your response to Ellen where you called her "learned opinion" of your emails/motives/real meanings of your words by its rightful name: bullshit.

Heh.

Ellen's ass-kissing of Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo seems to be working.

Please feel free to cross-post anything you feel will run the risk of deletion on SLOP.

(EDIT: From the way I have been doing recently, this will save me the trouble. )

Micheal

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On a note about something more interesting, I went to the Wikipedia talk page Robert linked to above: Valliant: Attempt at a Summary.

"Pelagius1," who is either Valliant or spouse (since the IP comes from the Valliant household), posted the Peikoff email and "triumphantly" chimed, "posted with his permission here."

The Wikipedia editors did not seem to be very impressed.

One of them—RL0919 —responded. From what I know of Wikipedia editing policies, I would say his view on the topic of using second hand emails as sources is held by the majority.

To understand his first sentence below, here is what he was talking about. He mentioned that there are some "academics who disdain Rand and do not wish to dignify her with discussion." On the other side, there are "prominent Objectivists (Peikoff, Gotthelf, etc.) who detest the Brandens and prefer not to even mention them in their works." This is the context for the quote.

Regarding the email from Peikoff, this is an example of what I just mentioned. If Peikoff endorses Valliant's book and the claims therein, he has many venues available to him where he could say this. He could publish a review. He could write an essay that includes the use of Valliant as a source. He could mention the book in a radio or tv interview. These would be verifiable references from a reliable source that could be used to bolster the book's status, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. But that would effectively require him to mention the Brandens in public. So what we get instead is a second-hand posting about a private email. While I personally believe this is probably a legitimate email from Peikoff, it is not independently verifiable unless he confirms it directly in some more trustworthy venue. Which brings us back to the practice of not talking about the Brandens. To put it bluntly, the major-league Objectivists need to either crap or get off the pot on this subject. If they support Valliant's view of the Brandens, they should say so in reputable public venues: reviews in third-party magazines, citations in academic articles, etc. That is what will gain the book status as a reliable source. Private emails aren't going to do the trick. --RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think one sentence above merits repetition:

"To put it bluntly, the major-league Objectivists need to either crap or get off the pot on this subject."

That is, of course, if they want to occupy public space where verifiability by anyone interested is a both a value and a custom.

Or they can keep demanding that the public take them on faith in the name of Ayn Rand and pretend (even to themselves) that this horribly irrational and amateur behavior is some form of not sanctioning evil, yada yada yada, then keep wondering why they cannot dictate content and policy at places like Wikipedia.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, those guys are doing a wonderful job of pissing all over the turf.

As if O-world needed more of that.

Love the revisionist-history-on-the-fly thing; that's revealing.

rde

Definitely going to read further hijinks and capers of this nature on an empty stomach.

[Brant Gaede]

Your post below, Robert, is currently up on SOLOP. Was another deleted?

--Brant

SOLOP has started behaving hinkily, deleting prior posts when you make a new one.

It's already eaten my second response to Ellen Stuttle about "misleading" people.

So as a precautionary measure, I'm going to cross-post here:

James Valliant on the Mend

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Mon, 2009-06-08 17:27.

Mr. Valliant must be doing a little better, because he has returned to Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Objectiv...pt_at_a_Summary

May I ask for that "summary"? Per consensus, may the Valliant book be cited or used at Wikipedia outside of the Bibliography? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

This is the letter sent to Mr. Wales from Ayn Rand heir, Leonard Peikoff, PhD, on May 29, 2009 (posted with his permission here):

[same text as previously posted at SOLOP--RLC]

Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

Incidentally, the Wikipedia biography of Peikoff currently reads: "Kelley has worked with the libertarian movement in the United States and other groups with which Peikoff refused to associate. Nathaniel Branden, whom Rand herself had publicly repudiated, later joined with David Kelley and The Objectivist Center. This resulted in a number of members ending their own association with Kelley's group.[citation needed]" The needed citation, of course, are the numerous statements of scholars and writers influenced by 'The Passion of Ayn Rand;'s Critics.' This is bizarre, as most did not leave until they read Valliant's book. Have you decided to omit history as well? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

Valliant's eyewitness testimony re Rothbard, the actual Rand notes themselves, his arguments -- whatever the positive Kirkus Review said about it the book -- the impact of the book on scholars within the movement, are all censored, while the factually dubious works of Walker, Shermer, Rothbard, Ellis, and the Brandens are not? Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009

Far more shocking is the silence of all those (still) associated with David Kelley's group -- since Kelley had overtly called for such a debate about B. Branden's work in his initial attack on ARI. Here, a detailed reply, complete with Rand's own notes is published, and they stand silent after trumpeting the alleged silence of their opponents(!) Of course, this excludes those scholars who left association with TAS ~ because ~ of PARC.

Walker? He spread total nonsense. There is no reason to treat PARC differently from the Brandens' works. Pelagius1 (talk) 6 June, 2009.

Mr. Parille has evaded every response by Valliant to each of his nonsensical assertions about the book. His dishonesty and evasion should be ignored, it is baseless in every case. Some of what he writes (take #5) has absolutely nothing to do with the book in question, and illustrate here his wild animus against Rand and Peikoff, which are well-known. No one is likely to waste time or effort responding to a truly "unreliable" source. Pelagius1 (talk) 8 June, 2009.

*************

The smarm and sleaze are wholly characteristic.

Note, too, how Mr. Valliant falsely alleges that a bunch of "scholars" left TAS because Mr. Valliant's opus revealed unto them the error of their ways.

I know of one person who left TAS on account of Mr. Valliant's book: Bill Perry. I believe that because Bill told me he had left for that reason, and said so here as well.

I once unwisely stated that Michelle Fram Cohen had left on account of the book. She indignantly denied it.

Who else?

Obviously, Mr. Valliant has regained enough energy to start telling lies again.]

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your post below, Robert, is currently up on SOLOP. Was another deleted?

Brant,

Yes.

Another was deleted. He wrote it. I saw it.

That's what he wrote. That's what I wrote.

Robert can re-confirm and we both can re-re-confirm and then re-re-re-confirm if you wish.

Now Robert may not be fully aligned with my analysis about why, but to repeat that, too, this deletion of Robert's proper rebuttal to Stuttle is the reward of ass-kissing.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Folks,

I see that Richard Lawrence deleted my "10 Questions For Leonard Peikoff" from Wikipedia. If I violated the rules, I violated the rules. For some reason Lawrence didn't delete the original post quoting the Peikoff letter in full by Valliant's sockpuppet Pelagius1. But rules are rules.

I should add, however, that Peikoff has said that he will discuss the book. Peikoff discussing something like PARC in a neutral forum is about as likely as finding a '57 Chevy on the moon. And Mr. Lawrence wants to interfere with this world-historical event?

-Neil Parille

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

I can't speak to what Richard's motives are, but I can speculate a bit.

Using the spirit of charity on some of his pronouncements I have seen over the months (specifically, the ones I do not agree with), I get the feeling that he is greatly saddened by schism stuff and would like to preserve the best in all major parties within the Objectivist subcommunity to the extent possible.

I do know that his Objectivist Reference Center is one hell of a good resource for those who are just getting familiar with Rand's ideas—and if you need a quick fact about the Objectivist universe. I have not done a point-by-point check on the information on the site, but, other than a sporadic broken link, what facts I have obtained there have been accurate. In fact, it is among the most accurate and unbiased places about Objectivism I know of.

This solid achievement of his, which is not common at all in our little subcommunity, generally leads me to grant him a huge benefit of the doubt. So while I think it is possible that he joined in with the PARC tribe and is toeing a tribal line against you, I think it very probable that his motives are not in that direction.

You could ask him. That would probably be a good idea, anyway.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

In the 1990's the divisiveness was much healthier because it actually spurred people to write principled arguments about the divisions. The divisions were addressed in philosophical terms.

Jim,

Arguments were indeed produced, but it's not clear how much new philosophy got done.

"Fact and Value" is pretty thin and sloppy, even compared to the latter-day Peikovian norm. On the issue of arbitrariness, it actually contradicts other work that Dr. Peikoff was doing around that time.

"Truth and Toleration" (aka "Contested Legacy") is better as philosophy, but it doesn't break a lot of ground. Under different circumstances, there would have been little need for David Kelley to spend much time on it.

The underlying problem is that Ayn Rand, in some of her writings and utterances, encouraged people to weld into her body of ideas a belief in their author's personal moral perfection.

There's no easy way around this: you either reject the claim of moral perfection; you reject its purported relevance to her ideas; or you accept the claim and its purported relevance.

You're right that assertions about her personal moral perfection are often employed to excuse personal feuds and organizational power-grabs. (Does anyone think that what keeps Lindsay Perigo running is a sincere belief in Ayn Rand's moral perfection?) But the weapon lies ready for the using, out here in Rand-land.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

I disagree. I think it's all of the hinky group dynamics that seem to grow around these claims that is the problem. I think it's more than OK to celebrate Ayn Rand. For me the question of whether she was morally perfect seems laughably irrelevant.

What I think is bizarre is to dwell on her purported personal flaws or to systematically violate norms of objectivity in service of her legacy.

Either is an error.

Jim

Edited June 9, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

Have you ever heard of a term called "the goddess premise" when someone refers to Ayn Rand?

Do you know where that term came from?

Michael