Diana Mertz Hsieh Meets The Wall of Hypocrisy

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, I used to be more interested in DH and her below-the-surface arbitrary switching of social-intellectual contexts. Old news, that's all, except I have great contempt for Mayhew so his turning on her is less than zero to me. Neither Diana nor Lindsay can hurt anyone any longer the way they savaged Chris Sciabarra on SLOP six years ago. There won't be any more surprises like that. They've used up all the power they got from the Dark Side. As for ideas, who cares about a would-be Dear Abbey of Objectivism?

--Brant

the narcissist (nice ring to it, but the cross-dressing is too gaudy so I gave it up

[9thdoctor]

I also recall seeing a message from Nathaniel Branden to her back when she was turning to the dark side, and I believe he predicted the future with considerable accuracy.

Didn't take long to find it:

http://www.philosoph...com/blog/?p=666

Go ahead, my dear old friend, attack away!

I still say what I have said to you before: one day Leonard P. and his associates will be too much, even for you, and your natural intelligence will reassert itself, and you will leave the ARI world (if you are not excommunicated first)…and then all these exchanges will be understood in a different light.

With all good wishes,

Nathaniel

[PDS]

I finally joined Facebook recently, though under a fake name. There was some info I needed access to, so I thought up another clever pseudonym and got what I needed. Maybe I'll do it for real one of these days. Anyway, before long I found myself starting to lurk around O'ist related areas, and tonight I went through James Valliant's thread (?) on the subject of Checking Premises. Therein I found Robert Mayhew's denunciation of Comrade Sonia, and I don't recall anyone mentioning it here. It's pretty lengthy, so here's just a few paragraphs:

Diana Hsieh (DH) has responded to the appearance of a website (CheckingPremises.org) devoted to (among other things) criticizing her ‘work’. She responds as if much of what’s behind these criticisms are disagreements with Leonard Peikoff--which, to these dogmatic critics (so portrayed), is a sin against Objectivism. Although I think that her criticisms of Dr. Peikoff are more disrespectful (and presumptuous) than she lets on (and that that’s not nothing), my primary problem with her is her ineptness as a thinker combined with her promotion of herself as a philosopher—and an Objectivist one at that. (In my view, she was at her best criticizing the Brandens, David Kelley, etc., and taking part in certain ad hoc activism.)

…

Philosophy is not some game in which one posits: "Let’s see what weird conclusions can be reached by the logical application of the fixed set of maxims that make up this closed philosophy I adhere to." It is precisely this lack of introspective or psychological (or psycho-epistemological) insight, not to say delicacy, that makes DH especially unqualified to talk about virtually any issue involving sexuality. As she does feel qualified, however, as she claims to be an Objectivist philosopher one would expect from her some kind of non-superficial discussion of Ayn Rand’s conception of sexuality and the key concepts related to it (especially masculinity and femininity). But that’s not the response to Ayn Rand’s views that I’ve seen from DH and the pseudo-intellectuals flocking around her. They feel shock or embarrassment or repugnance or whatever at much of what Ayn Rand has said and written about these subjects. In this case, however, instead of setting aside her feelings about the subject (as not an objective measure), and investigating Ayn Rand’s views with rigor, she and her ilk blunder ahead. Take, for example, her response to Leonard Peikoff’s views on sex-change operations.

…

One could level these same kinds of criticisms against much of what DH writes. But my life is too dear and this particular embarrassment to the movement too puny to devote any more time to, so I hope this will be my last (semi-public) words on her.

Just a couple years ago he turned to her to publish his reply to Robert Campbell's Rewrite Squad thread, so relations have certainly changed. I gotta go cry me a river, so I'm going to cut this off here.

Mayhew seems to be calling DH a mere "Phd with a podcast," no?

His last sentence is pretty harsh, even if inadvertantly true: i.e., Peikoff's embarassment(s) "to the movement" have been far less puny than anything DH has done.

If forced to coin an Objectivist term for taking pleasure in the misfortune of others on the recieving end of ARI treatment, I might call it nathanfreude.

[william.scherk]

I have a RADIO SHOW too! With images. Via Youtube (rebroadcast).

Favourite line, "YOU would STARVE and fall from your perch (without altruism)":

[media=]

Edited May 17, 2012 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

"Go ahead, my dear old friend, attack away!" quotes some slick gun-toting lawyer type who has no doubt vacationed in Canada. Not on Objectivist business, at any rate, and not in search of Anne of Green Gables, no matter what he says, the traitor..

That sneering note of intellectual moralism accomplished on my part, hats off to PDS for hitting black comedy gold on his first test well.

I have Nathanfreude Brandenfreude bad, I think. And I do not want a cure just now.

That Diana set her cap to be one of the Alpha chimps of one of the important tribes of Objectivist Hill People, that's one thing, and I admire her her industry and determination. To conquer the Hill Tribe and be the wise old lioness on the throne, who could resist that Golden O of control and domination, once suitably primed by a personality devoid of the human touch?

That Diana clawed and scratched her way closer to the centre of her target tribe, well and good. We are primates. We hunt and kill, and there is occasional bycatch. She did her best to take the throne, and felled all manner of allies in her climb. We should salute her her mad ambition, if not her long limb-cracking fall from the upper branches of the HQ. Crack snap snap crack thump and down she goes among the lesser PayPal Philosophers ...

So she failed and her own intellectual terror tactics are being used on her in turn. We should be ashamed of our fleeting feelings of empathy and pleasure?

This may call for a lengthy advertisement of my Horsey hair at Noodlefood, dammit. Call me, Send Me Money, Like Me, send me a lifeline, I am On The Radio! Fighting for the right to Yellow Margarine! Fighting for My Horse! Fighting for the throne of Colorado!

Edited May 18, 2012 by william.scherk

[9thdoctor]

If forced to coin an Objectivist term for taking pleasure in the misfortune of others on the recieving end of ARI treatment, I might call it nathanfreude.

But shouldn’t it be Brandenfreude? Branden is phonically closer to schaden, plus freude is a feminine noun in German so combining it with Nathan just looks a little off to me. Also, the word sounds like it might genuinely refer to the enjoyment of NY style hot dogs with onion relish on top. Damn, now I feel like I’m just a buzzkill…

Me I never see stalls, only pauses, breath-gathering, vista-appreciating, and a moment of quiet glory before Reason (and never ever stupefaction, now that Phil is but a ghost).

Me I see a post that wound up on the wrong thread!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Strangely enough, I don't feel pleasure at Hsieh's unfolding excommunication and crucifixion.

(Incidentally, for those who like that show, I predict it's going to get a lot worse--a lot, lot, lot worse--as it gains momentum. That's what these things do.)

I almost feel weird about saying this. You know, she trashed good people and now she's getting trashed. Turnabout is fair play and all that. I should feel good that cosmic justice is exacting its due.

But I don't.

There's a spirit in Hsieh I hope does not die with this experience. I have always sensed a hunger in her to believe in something, believe in someone, to find a cause she could devote her life to and call it noble. That's a good thing to have. And I always feel sad when i see that become jaded.

Hsieh isn't bad for wanting that. She just screwed up big time on establishing her criteria. Her journey is a perfect example of how bad things come to good people from bad premises.

Somehow she got the idea that being an attack dog would be a way to gain approval from the people who held the secret to the noble cause she longed to follow so very much. When she was close to Open Objectivism System & Co., she attacked Closed Objectivism System & Co. Then vice-versa.

I speculate, but I think she got impatient with the backstage schism complaining and thought if no one was going to take care of these things, she would resolve them. Then everyone could get on with the good stuff.

She premised inside herself the idea that once she went after the traditional enemies and/or scapegoats of insiders, she would be rewarded with a place at their table. I think she believed this so much after she converted to Objectivist fundamentalism, she went about setting her silverware and china out. And now she is looking at those folks and they are telling her to leave, that she will not be dining at their table.

I feel bad for her.

The thing is, Hsieh does stuff. She doesn't just talk about doing it. And if that means putting herself out in public and putting a big target on her own back, she does it. Willingly. Gladly. She doesn't wait to be told. Once she believes, she sets a goal, develops a plan and goes for it. That's what makes me feel for her.

(This doesn't mean I condone the attacks she has made on good people or some of her goofball ideas. I'm on a different vibe right now.)

She recently set up a network, both online and off. She has her little projects going. She was sacred to death, but she started podcasting and making videos and overcame her nerves. That's a big deal if you haven't done it. She is obviously reading advice on link baiting and social media and this has shown in her posts. (At least I can see it.) And on and on. She works hard.

I just can't look at all that and pretend it's nothing.

So I hope when she hits bottom and looks at her ruin before ARI & Co., she will also look around and see the good things she has built, realize the nature of her premise-level screw-up, rethink her criteria, and use her efforts for leaving traces of her intelligence around, for nurturing small seeds to grow into big trees, for developing her own original thinking to help light the world a bit more.

I fully agree with NB's benevolent assessment of her (despite the humongous cleanup she has waiting down the road.). She has a good mind and I expect to see good things yet to come from her. It's a shame she called NB a prick for it.

(OK, OK... I'm done defending Hsieh. It's really weird for me to do that, anyway. )

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Yikes, that would have Shaggy and Scoob on the run faster than any of those fictional villains.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnCR2ZZas68

Shave half a minute off Roger Bannister's mile for sure...

[BaalChatzaf]

Unkind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

Somehow she got the idea that being an attack dog would be a way to gain approval from the people who held the secret to the noble cause she longed to follow so very much.

Somehow she got the idea? It worked! Just listen to this:

http://www.peikoff.c...and-diana-shaw/

How far away was Anthem Foundation funding to help her break into academia?

So what happened, one may ask? She acted as though banning and purging was safe behavior on issues for which no marching orders had yet been issued. PARC, obviously. 2006 voting fatwa, duh. Ground Zero Mosque? Remember how it went down, she had been in full purge mode for weeks before Peikoff did his podcast. But on the other side of the issue. Surprise!

Anyway, so you’re feeling sympathy you old softie…spend a few minutes reviewing her “false friends” writings, maybe make a beeline for “dialectical dishonesty”. I had to last night in order to find the Branden quote above. Then get back to enjoying the spectacle, ye "odious" one, for this is probably how the original audiences for Greek tragedy felt. I bet when Oedipus killed his father there was a good part of the crowd laughing and calling out "served you right, asshole!"

[caroljane]

Etos antropos daimon, yes. Some must feel pity and terror and some must scoff, and some are doomed to do all 3, and some must write a treatment for development.

Carol

Fatalist

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Heh.

Just for the record, here is the very first time Hsieh ever mentioned me, and this was without knowing anything at all about me or my work (other than, apparently, one article i wrote). It is from a post on Noodlefood dated October 25, 2005. I guess I should feel flattered because she mentioned me twice in a very short post, although I am only giving one of the times below:

It’s author, Michael Stuart Kelly, is perhaps the most transparently dishonest contributor to SOLO.

The article she was referring to was titled To Turn or Not to Turn - A Question of Cheek.

The reception I got from that article prompted me to fill out my understanding of Objectivism, but not in the sense of correcting myself according to Objectivist doctrine. The blow-up response was the moment I began to think there was something incomplete about the understanding of human nature within the philosophy.

There were too many good people who were admirers one minute, and demonizing stone throwers the next. I watched as Lindsay Perigo lathered them up and manipulated them to go in a hateful direction just as surely as a cowboy herds cattle. He used Hsieh's words about me as a battle-cry, too.

Barbara told me at the time that she observed the same thing about her, and of course I had noticed that. As she had noticed about others before her. But when it happens to you, you have a different, more vivid conceptual referent.

I did not consider the sheeple as corrupt, though. I thought of them as putty in the hands of a manipulator. In the discussions (to this article and others), several posters even complained that Perigo got my meaning wrong. It was pretty honking obvious he did, too, but he insisted on his rabble-rousing rhetoric and they ultimately caved.

Now these were not stupid people or weak-minded folks.

So I began to wonder what on earth was the power that moved them to act like that. I was sure of one thing--it was not philosophy.

Thus began my interest in persuasion techniques, cult analysis and neuroscience. I became really interested in what causes people to scapegoat others.

I looked for a while in Objectivist literature just to make sure, but I didn't find any answers there. I still felt the bulk of Rand's observations about human nature were correct. but I couldn't help notice that Ayn Rand herself scapegoated as a habit.

I have since concluded that what Rand got right, she got right to the point of deep insight. She got a few things wrong. And her view of human nature is very incomplete. (I am still fleshing this out, but these parameters in my view have not changed for a long time.)

I haven't reprinted that article on OL yet (which is why the link is to the RoR version) because I knew I had to do a lot of study to figure out what happened. I didn't want to start that yawp all over again without understanding. It is a long discussion to do it right. My plan was (and still is) to do an in-depth analysis. I probably will do it since I can say that, today, I know the answers, at least in terms of fundamentals.

This is the perspective I bring to looking at Hsieh's situation.

But you are right to condemn her for the terrible things she did. I just believe there is good stuff--really good stuff--underneath in her soul that transcends those rotten acts.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I have always sensed a hunger in [Diana] to believe in something, believe in someone, to find a cause she could devote her life to and call it noble.

I have a similar feeling about her. Expressing it in my metaphor, I've sensed that Diana is someone who has a strong desire for a sacred flame at the altar of which to serve as a priestess.

I can sympathize with the desire. When I was in my 20s and 30s I used to think that I would have liked to have been a pagan priestess. Not Christian. Christianity seemed like treacle to me, lacking the strength of infusion from primal wellsprings.

What I meant by such "wellsprings" and by other images (one of a "noble well-grown tree," for instance) was inchoate. I felt a need for a framework which included aspects of the psyche which I didn't find discussed in Rand's work -- though she does suggest with images she uses, images which I think outstrip her analyses.

The development for me was similar to what you describe in your post #137, only pertaining to different specific issues and taking a different direction. I discovered Jung. (I'd never read any of his work prior to 1981. He was dismissed as a basically mystical offshoot of Freud in my history of psych and other courses, and since I could tell from flipping through a couple collections of his essays that his writing was long-winded and I had heard that it was rambling, I didn't get around to giving it a try until I was almost 39 years old.)

Ellen

[PDS]

If forced to coin an Objectivist term for taking pleasure in the misfortune of others on the recieving end of ARI treatment, I might call it nathanfreude.

But shouldn’t it be Brandenfreude? Branden is phonically closer to schaden, plus freude is a feminine noun in German so combining it with Nathan just looks a little off to me. Also, the word sounds like it might genuinely refer to the enjoyment of NY style hot dogs with onion relish on top. Damn, now I feel like I’m just a buzzkill…

Me I never see stalls, only pauses, breath-gathering, vista-appreciating, and a moment of quiet glory before Reason (and never ever stupefaction, now that Phil is but a ghost).

Me I see a post that wound up on the wrong thread!

Ninth:

Your points re Brandenfreude are as sound as they can be, and because my ego is nothing if not seemingly healthy, I relinquish the term nathanfreude in its favor. I see that WSS has revised his prior post on this important issue, and because my respect for his wordsmithing knows no bounds, this fact alone would also have weighed heavily in favor of brandenfreude.

I liked the parallel long A in nathanfreude, and also felt like an ironic "inside baseball" twist was present with "nathan," because, as we all know, only those in the know would appreciate the distinction between nathan and nathanial. But alas, you have airbrushed the pimple from my Mona Lisa, and we are all the better for it.

[PDS]

I have always sensed a hunger in [Diana] to believe in something, believe in someone, to find a cause she could devote her life to and call it noble.

I have a similar feeling about her. Expressing it in my metaphor, I've sensed that Diana is someone who has a strong desire for a sacred flame at the altar of which to serve as a priestess.

I can sympathize with the desire. When I was in my 20s and 30s I used to think that I would have liked to have been a pagan priestess. Not Christian. Christianity seemed like treacle to me, lacking the strength of infusion from primal wellsprings.

What I meant by such "wellsprings" and by other images (one of a "noble well-grown tree," for instance) was inchoate. I felt a need for a framework which included aspects of the psyche which I didn't find discussed in Rand's work -- though she does suggest with images she uses, images which I think outstrip her analyses.

The development for me was similar to what you describe in your post #137, only pertaining to different specific issues and taking a different direction. I discovered Jung. (I'd never read any of his work prior to 1981. He was dismissed as a basically mystical offshoot of Freud in my history of psych and other courses, and since I could tell from flipping through a couple collections of his essays that his writing was long-winded and I had heard that it was rambling, I didn't get around to giving it a try until I was almost 39 years old.)

Ellen

Ellen:

Have you expanded on your points regarding Jung in other places?

I am fascinated by the above tidbits, as they have rough parallels to my own experience with Jung.

[Jonathan]

[media=]

Damn, that's funny, Bill. Heh. The sound effect and images starting at 1:42 sent chills down my spine.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen:

Have you expanded on your points regarding Jung in other places?

I am fascinated by the above tidbits [post #138], as they have rough parallels to my own experience with Jung.

I did some expanding on Old Atlantis, the files of which are no longer publicly available. I don't think I've said much of anything about the subject here. I have personal files from Old Atlantis, but not where they're easy to search. Maybe, the subject having come up, memories will start to percolate and I can write something from scratch. It was 30 years ago that the Jung cataclysm in my life happened, so it isn't exactly "fresh" to current consciousness.

Stay tuned. I'll start a separate thread if the muse complies (but never count on the muse, a tricky creature).

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't want this to detract from the humor of William's brilliant parody, but as I am pursuing a different angle, I believe the following video is more than germane to the topic.

The problem is moral selectivity masked as moral denunciation.

I just became acquainted with Albert Bandura's work for the first time today, so my familiarity with him is really superficial so far.

But I like what I just saw. A lot.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Bandura is one of the many greats. Good catch, MSK. Bob's great slogan and summary and Tony/Paul/Robert/Ellen's pithy critiques have us all ready for launch. We have a league. We need ice time. Say the word, Maestro.

I liked teasing Diana on her fall, but I must end that chapter of the festival, and turn to the scholarly deeps, to the delicate and dare we say it, Musing.

If Ellen, La Stuttle herself is ready to plunge pencil first into the sparkling waters, I shall linger on the shore and try to imagine a new way for Diana to take the throne. Why not? Shouldn't any American of a certain stripe be able to lead the Objectivish hordes? Could we not tactically support Diana All The Way, to prevent uncle kookiepants's minions from divvying the spoils? Do we not have some hard trades to consider?

I say it is time for OL to make a strategic alliance with Diana and her Empire in Waiting. I am willing to sacrifice myself, denounce myself and shun myself, all for the greater good, for the largest O, for the biggest festival. Under one roof, the biggest wrassling match of all. Full-on Mexican Style Objectivish Mixed Arts, natch.

Oh, shoot, we still have to get past our party in November. Dang. Guns, cakes, parties, where's my priorities?

Still, is there any doubt that with enough cups of coffee any one of us here might become Diana? In a snap of the final elastic holding us back? She has denounced folks we only denounce in our dreams, sure, but she has done it while we have only fantasized. Who are we to mock her style in Mortal Combat?

She has conquered (with words) every masked marauder, every slinker, every tag-team, oldies league rat pack, every bug-eyed grandpa, all of them, any formation that ever laid siege upon her, her own game, and her fortresses. That is a kind of triumph, and we may need to pause in awe.

MSK is right, gawd damn it. Stand down, William. Prepare for the larger battle. Prepare for November, side by side with the Doctor, striding forward together to Objectivish County. Come back, Ed, come back to objectivish county.

Edited May 19, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

Wait a minute - I expect to survive Novembers excesses and do not take kindly to you & Doc9 litin out for territories afterward - I will need aid to wrap leftovers.

[caroljane]

Leftovers like Romney. Or Obama, of course.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Not so fast.

I admire the production part in people, including Hsieh and you. Just as soon as someone puts something together, there're too many people out there ready, willing and malicious enough to take it all apart.

That's my beef. God knows they've done it enough with me. I get real mean when they start nowadays. I. also, have a soft spot for the labor of love of others.

But an alliance between a honey badger and a queen cobra will never work.

Michael

[caroljane]

William,

Not so fast.

I admire the production part in people, including Hsieh and you. Just as soon as someone puts something together, there're too many people out there ready, willing and malicious enough to take it all apart.

That's my beef. God knows they've done it enough with me. I get real mean when they start nowadays. I. also, have a soft spot for the labor of love of others.

But an alliance between a honey badger and a queen cobra will never work.

Michael

Are you a Robt Ruark fan?..Me too.. RR was from your part of US I believe.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re post #142, I started a thread in the "Psychology" forum titled "A Jung Tale."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you a Robt Ruark fan?

Carol,

I have never read him. I have always been curious, though. I have seen his books in bookstores and libraries over the years.

I just now read the Wikipedia article: Robert Ruark. He sounds interesting.

Michael