Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

I'll leave dentistry to the dentists, and do so with thanks and gratitude.

And I've watched this thing from its inception.

At first, I figured his agenda was pretty easy to figure out, and I wrote on that because it looked like a no-brainer. You know, he happened to be into Rand, he looked Ortho, he had aspirations to write, he jumped on the first thing that had meat on its bones, etc. For him, it was a natural.

And he was smarmy off the rip, he was condescending, equivocal, as is the way of such creatures. To me, it was no suprise. In fact, it was kind of boring and stereotypical, all this attachment, all this riding the backdrafts of dogs way bigger than he. It was more or less parallel to how Rand herself portrayed such types. Second-rate authors with no thundersticks of their own do this all the time--it is common in the mainstream writing world because it's freakin' easy to do.

Ah, but there's a flaw of arrogance. There, to underestimate the thorough, detail-collecting nature of people around here--you can't skate, you can't fudge, because so many of us watch, remember, and save things. So that had to fluster him, and it showed.

But now, I re-question this. Meaning, yes, the above seems abundantly possible, and likely true. The thing is, I think this is, maybe, not his actual agenda, his true agenda, if he has one. I mean, hell, he's a government lawyer, and that's enough for me. I don't know where he's going with it, but I don't buy his supposed unfaltering loyalty. And even if I did, that would make me ginchy, because that would mean that he is an idolator, and doesn't think for himself. That Rand=word.

I don't buy that out of him.

So, outside of selling books, I can't figure out what else he wants from all this. It was foolish to enter into such a place where so many others (equally promising, I guess) would have made better and easier fare for him.

Is it possible to be such a dumbass at that level? The book bombed, basically. He's under fire in the tiny community he chose to peddle.

Sometimes, the obvious is not so obvious. Maybe he is going after Rand herself. But that would require a strategy more complex than he appears to be capable of.

Either way, he's twisting in the wind, and that's where he belongs. He hit the level--his level.

What I'm saying, in short, is that I'm not sure Nathaniel and Barbara are his true targets. If they are, though, he's a potzer.

Does he have handlers? Does he have handlers and not even know he's being handled? Dunno. There is a good case for the elite to want to re-spin Rand, or just flat out take her out, what with her being one of the leading freethinkers that ever existed, and all. Just an idea, but not entirely without basis. Seen it done before.

There are, for sure, bigger fish to fry. Maybe that's it. The dollar has been devalued by more than half. Oil has been driven to 130 a barrel. Why be distracted by this guy?

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thank goodness something objective came up. Valliant just wrote on Siberia Passion :) (and I shall leave in only the facts and leave out his boneheaded evaluations):

M.S. Kelly: "Peikoff also heartily endorsed the book by claiming the following: 'Jim Valliant... is one of the few people that knows what he's talking about when he says something.'"

No, this was his endorsement of Ideas in Action, ten years before PARC, and the quotation can be found on the video's jacket.

Excellent.

I am more than glad to stand corrected on this.

That being the case, this is all the more reason for Peikoff (or his people) to go around deleting it from the Internet. Frankly, I would too. In the manner the quote appeared in the announcement for Valliant's 2006 lectures for the Chicago Objectivist Society, it appeared like it was Peikoff's written endorsement of the finished product of PARC, but it was nothing but collage-like deceptive PR hype.

Presenting that quote in the middle of all that information on PARC without proper attribution (in fact, without any attribution at all) strongly insinuated that this was Peikoff's view of Valliant in relation to PARC (thus, as an expert on the Brandens) and gave the image that Peikoff wrote it to plug PARC. Now we know that image is imaginary and induced by sleazy PR. I am delighted Peikoff did not write this for PARC and the false insinuation that he did was simply a manipulation.

In simple terms, it is a dishonest use of a quote that is very common in show business. You see it all the time. This is the kind of crap I object to in packaging Rand (she certainly doesn't need it) and precisely what I mean by the metaphor of facts presented by a used car salesman. It is misleading on purpose to sell a lemon.

I will alter my essay above to reflect both my initial impression and the correction.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just added the following to my opening text, without altering the original wording:

* NOTE ON MAY 20, 2008: Valliant just revealed that this quote is from the video jacket of Ideas in Action, which, according to him, was published 10 years earlier than PARC. I just documented this in a post. As you can see in the full context in the Noodelfood post reproduced below, there is a strong insinuation that Peikoff wrote this to plug PARC. At any rate, Peikoff endorsed PARC enough to let Valliant use Rand's unpublished journal entries. I have no formal knowledge of what his evaluation of the finished book is, but I have a good guess, and I guess it has changed over time.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further along in the post Michael references above (see) Valliant again botches what was being said in the Dawkins-forum discussion, and he quotes a post of mine failing to indicate that part of what he quoted was written by MSK not by me.

Does he do these things deliberately attempting to goad people into talking to him, I wonder, or is he fully as incompetent at reading, writing, citing as he appears to be? [*]

The latter possibility ties into something I've been wondering about ever since my first reading of PARC in February 2006. It's the question of why Leonard Peikoff did entrust AR's journal entries about the affair to Valliant's use in a book.

As I understand what happened, Valliant started writing a series of analyses of Passion and of NB's memoirs on his friend Casey Fahy's list. Leonard Peikoff read this series and then, liking what he read, he allowed Valliant the use of the diaries in an extended book based on the web version.

I didn't see the original series, and I've very much wished that I had seen it. I wonder if the original analysis was far more sensible and restrained than the book turned out to be -- and better presented. There are a certain number of valid criticisms which can be made of the Brandens' respective books. Possibly in the original series of web-postings Valliant stuck nearer to factual pointing out of inconsistencies, overstatements, questionable psychological interpretations. Possibly Leonard Peikoff thought that the finished book would do likewise. Possibly he's dismayed at how poorly done the final book is, with its mountainous overload of tendentious arguing, its claims to have proven what hasn't been proven, its special pleading which is so obvious, I think it has to have a reverse effect from that of enhancing Rand's image in the eyes of fair-minded readers.

Though I don't doubt that Leonard Peikoff would like to have seen a good job of critiquing the Brandens' accounts, and though I know that Peikoff himself is prone to interpreting in a flattering light characteristics of Rand's which many would view unfavorably (see, for instance, his discussion of her anger and his applauding description of her analysis of the streaker incident in his "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand"), still, I think that he is too good a writer himself not to recognize and to feel dismayed by the horrendous flaws of presentation in PARC.

Ellen

[*] Maybe Valliant learned a certain amount of his mis-citing and misstating methods from Rothbard. He was, yes, Rothbard's student for a time?

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Michael, Valliant is being a lot more polite to Robert on SOLOP than to the you who does not post there. I think he hates your guts. Linz, meanwhile, continues to do what he does best (he's a very good writer): name call. I don't think he knows or cares how alienating that is to a lot of people who have deorbited themselves from his dwarf planet. I actually don't have too many bad feelings about James Valliant. I just think he's in way over his head: a lawyer who came in from left field interjecting himself into a situation he doesn't really comprehend in its depth or totality. I don't think, for example, that he begins to understand the greatness of Ayn Rand and how that greatness both sucked in and distorted so many lives, including the life of Ayn Rand herself. Barbara Branden did. That's why her biography of Ayn Rand will endure through time. Valliant is throwing rocks at a fortress: Ayn Rand's own humanity.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

The web presentation was horrendous. Of PARC I’ve read only what Valliant has posted at SoloP. The web edition absolutely was not any better than what has been posted.

You wondered if Peikoff had seen something more reasonable or in any way of a higher quality when he read the web version. Sorry, no.

Funny aside: According to Jim, I am responsible for improvements of the web edition itself! After reading it, I emailed he and Casey my frank thoughts, which I summed-up with a comment along the lines of “and you fucknuts imagine that you are doing her legacy a favor with this?” We exchanged a few times and then he wrote that my comments (I pointed out several specific problems) were very helpful, he has made changes in response to them, and he would like to name me in the credits! I declined and stopped “helping.” It was also at this time that I learned from Jim that many people believe that N. Branden murdered his wife Patrecia. But that he didn’t believe it himself. Isn’t that precious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon,

Thanks much for the information!

So then what could have possessed Leonard Peikoff? Maybe he really was trying to pay AR back.

It was also at this time that I learned from Jim that many people believe that N. Branden murdered his wife Patrecia. But that he didn’t believe it himself. Isn’t that precious?

I don't suppose he cited any of his sources? ;-) I've heard the hypothesis floated; Virginia Hamil -- or whatever her name was -- I believe proposed it in print. (I read her article but long ago and I don't still have a copy and don't well remember what she said.) But as to the "many," I'd have to hear names to believe that estimate of numbers.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon,

Thanks much for the information!

So then what could have possessed Leonard Peikoff? Maybe he really was trying to pay AR back.

It was also at this time that I learned from Jim that many people believe that N. Branden murdered his wife Patrecia. But that he didn't believe it himself. Isn't that precious?

I don't suppose he cited any of his sources? ;-) I've heard the hypothesis floated; Virginia Hamil -- or whatever her name was -- I believe proposed it in print. (I read her article but long ago and I don't still have a copy and don't well remember what she said.) But as to the "many," I'd have to hear names to believe that estimate of numbers.

I have a copy of that screed; I don't know where. I also have a copy of a much more interesting pamplet published in the early seventies by a woman with a much deeper emotional fixation on Ayn Rand.

I had very heavy contact with Nathaniel Branden both before and after Patrecia's death: for a year as my therapist in NYC and then through a number of Intensives he did involving many people. He did two Intensives before her death. The first was in Washington D.C., which I attended, the second was in L.A. which I think was also his first official Intensive, the one in Washington being something of a trail run. Then I attended a number in NYC. I don't know now what that lady said in her screed about murder or not, but that Nathaniel could have murdered someone he loved so much is so preposterous we might as well be talking about men from Mars. I remember on one therapy weekend there had been an earthquake in L.A. which did little damage but Nathaniel didn't know about and when I mentioned it to him he practically screamed, "What!" The safety and well being of his wife back in L.A. was obviously his only real concern. NB was an exceedingly happy man in the mid-seventies. After Patrecia died he went through a year of hell. That last is his testimony. I didn't witness that except from the sidelines for we were not friends, but everything he testified to about that in various venues all fit into my direct experiences with him in those years. Something else I witnessed gave me the impression he had not dealt adequately with Ayn Rand in his life--that he wasn't properly grounded then or yet about that, but that is another story.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

You write, “So then what could have possessed Leonard Peikoff? Maybe he really was trying to pay AR back.”

No, I’m sure that’s not it.

Peikoff was blinded by the same longing that animates today’s admirers of PARC…he and they want their HERO back. (No, their PERFECT hero.)

From My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand:

BOLD was italic in original. [My comments]

“Ladies and Gentlemen: in my judgment, Ayn Rand did live her philosophy. Whatever her errors, she practiced what she preached, both epistemologically and morally. As a result, she did achieve in her life that which she set out to achieve; she achieved it intellectually, artistically, emotionally. But for you to judge these matters yourself and reach an objective view of Ayn Rand, you must be an unusually philosophical kind of person, [you want to be that, right? Then listen carefully] because you are living in a Kantian, anti-value culture, and you are going to be offered some very opposite accounts of the facts of her life. So you have to know: what IS objectivity? What sort of testimony qualifies as evidence in this context? What do YOU believe is possible to a man—or a woman? What kind of soul do YOU think it takes to write Atlas Shrugged? And what do you WANT to see in a historic figure? [We were just told to be wary of Kantianism, and now—Objectivist shunning of whims, wishes and wants be damned—we are invited to ponder what we WANT to see in a historic figure???]

“I am not a Kantian. I do not believe that we can know Ayn Rand only as she appeared to somebody or other. But if I were to grant that premise for a split second, if I were to agree that we all construe reality according to our own personal preferences, then I would still draw a fundamental moral distinction between two kinds of preferences: between those of the muckrakers and those of the hero-worshippers. It is the distinction between the people who, confronted by a genius, are seized with a passion to ferret out flaws, real or imaginary, i.e., to find feet of clay so as to justify their own blighted lives—as against the people who, desperate to feel admiration, want to dismiss any flaw as trivial because nothing matters to them in such a context but the sight of the human greatness that inspires and awes them. In this kind of clash, I am sure, you recognize where I stand.”

“Desperate to feel admiration.”

They surely know that Rand was not perfect and that PARC is quite far from perfect, but when one is fixated on what one WANTS to see, and when one is desperate to feel admiration…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It was also at this time that I learned from Jim that many people believe that N. Branden murdered his wife Patrecia. But that he didn’t believe it himself. Isn’t that precious?"

Eek. Why even bring up yucko like that when you don't buy it (and who would)? Just shooting the bull, I guess, nudge nudge, wink wink.

That aside, the whole untarnished perfect hero thing is so sad. But it's the way of things, it's been so pretty much forever. George Washington chopping down cherry trees (not growing hemp and, er...heh). Paul Revere being inserted into the poem rather than the Jewish guy that rode way way farther doing the same thing...hey, Epstein or whatever is hard to slam into rhyming iambic pentameter, you know?

But aren't heroes so much more intriguing when they are real? People aren't perfect. And if I ever saw one that appeared to be so, I'd get very suspicious. Part of the hero's journey is the inner struggle. The real deal is so much more, uh, real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

You write, "So then what could have possessed Leonard Peikoff? Maybe he really was trying to pay AR back."

No, I'm sure that's not it.

Peikoff was blinded by the same longing that animates today's admirers of PARC…he and they want their HERO back. (No, their PERFECT hero.)

From My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand:

BOLD was italic in original. [My comments]

"Ladies and Gentlemen: in my judgment, Ayn Rand did live her philosophy. Whatever her errors, she practiced what she preached, both epistemologically and morally. As a result, she did achieve in her life that which she set out to achieve; she achieved it intellectually, artistically, emotionally. But for you to judge these matters yourself and reach an objective view of Ayn Rand, you must be an unusually philosophical kind of person, [you want to be that, right? Then listen carefully] because you are living in a Kantian, anti-value culture, and you are going to be offered some very opposite accounts of the facts of her life. So you have to know: what IS objectivity? What sort of testimony qualifies as evidence in this context? What do YOU believe is possible to a man—or a woman? What kind of soul do YOU think it takes to write Atlas Shrugged? And what do you WANT to see in a historic figure? [We were just told to be wary of Kantianism, and now—Objectivist shunning of whims, wishes and wants be damned—we are invited to ponder what we WANT to see in a historic figure???]

"I am not a Kantian. I do not believe that we can know Ayn Rand only as she appeared to somebody or other. But if I were to grant that premise for a split second, if I were to agree that we all construe reality according to our own personal preferences, then I would still draw a fundamental moral distinction between two kinds of preferences: between those of the muckrakers and those of the hero-worshippers. It is the distinction between the people who, confronted by a genius, are seized with a passion to ferret out flaws, real or imaginary, i.e., to find feet of clay so as to justify their own blighted lives—as against the people who, desperate to feel admiration, want to dismiss any flaw as trivial because nothing matters to them in such a context but the sight of the human greatness that inspires and awes them. In this kind of clash, I am sure, you recognize where I stand."

"Desperate to feel admiration."

They surely know that Rand was not perfect and that PARC is quite far from perfect, but when one is fixated on what one WANTS to see, and when one is desperate to feel admiration…

I've listened to "My Thirty Years" several times, and always wondered why someone didn't shout out "wish-fulfillment? You believe it because you WANT it to be true?" It would have been amazingly rude, given the nature of the moment, but still...

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon,

I only read bits of Mr. Valliant's old Web presentation, and that was a while ago. I regret to say that I've read his book in its entirety, more than once :( My impression is similar to yours. The first half of Mr. Valliant's book is a (probably just lightly) reworked version of the old online article. I see no reason to doubt that Leonard Peikoff knew what he was getting, when he handed the keys to Jim Valliant.

Brant,

I attended an Intensive less than a year after Patrecia's death, and it was obvious to everyone there that Nathaniel Branden was still in mourning.

And, yeah, obviously, Mr. Valliant is in way over his head. But I and others have interacted with him enough to learn the hard way that he is an abundantly nasty critter. I will never forgive him for his efforts to destroy Chris Sciabarra's career, and I don't see why anyone else should, either.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further along in the post Michael references above (see) Valliant again botches what was being said in the Dawkins-forum discussion, and he quotes a post of mine failing to indicate that part of what he quoted was written by MSK not by me.

Does he do these things deliberately attempting to goad people into talking to him, I wonder, or is he fully as incompetent at reading, writing, citing as he appears to be?

Ellen,

I think he is as fully incompetent as he appears to be.

:)

Here is the botch in context (from Valliant's post on Siberia Passion), just so it stays on record. I normally would not do this, but these people have a habit of correcting errors, then insinuating that the error never happened and that the person who pointed it out has the soul of an anti-hero worshipper or something. I am putting the part that belongs to me in bold, with Valliant's smarmy interjections. Note that Valliant saw fit to comment on it as he quoted it, but he did not see fit to check where it came from.

This is typical of that normative before cognitive manner of thinking, which tries to fit facts to evaluations. Once the person is feeling something, he can react and not worry about pesky little things like facts. This is the approach used in PARC and the book is rife with these kinds of things (although not so blatant except for a fews places). This leads him to exaggerate a lot.

Ellen Stuttle (the lady who elsewhere suggested the existence of an "empirical" demonstration of determinism): "From this post [quoting me]:

"'In any event, the Brandens are hardly "evil incarnate," and I would be curious to know how one would conclude this from PARC -- if you can be specific.'

"'In PARC Valliant said NB has the soul of a rapist and that both Brandens are liars, manipulators, etc. about 50 gazillion times [that many?] and... and... and... [and what exactly?]

[....]

"Unreal, if he actually doesn't know 'how one would conclude this from PARC.'

Now here is my post above from whence it came:

The discussion flourishes in SLOP-land and I know I should really let it lie for now, but the following quote from Valliant gave me a belly-laugh like I haven't had in a long time. From this post.
In any event, the Brandens are hardly "evil incarnate," and I would be curious to know how one would conclude this from PARC -- if you can be specific.

In PARC Valliant said NB has the soul of a rapist and that both Brandens are liars, manipulators, etc. about 50 gazillion times and... and... and...

Did I say he was out of contact with reality? Or did I say it?

Oh the pain... the pain...

:)

Michael

Oops.

I seem to have left in that part about Valliant being out of contact with reality.

:)

Is Valliant a shoddy scholar or is he a shoddy-ass scholar?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

You write, “So then what could have possessed Leonard Peikoff? Maybe he really was trying to pay AR back.”

No, I’m sure that’s not it.

Peikoff was blinded by the same longing that animates today’s admirers of PARC…he and they want their HERO back. (No, their PERFECT hero.)

[skipping excerpt from "My Thirty Years"]

“Desperate to feel admiration.”

They surely know that Rand was not perfect and that PARC is quite far from perfect, but when one is fixated on what one WANTS to see, and when one is desperate to feel admiration…

Early in the history of this list, I wrote a post speculating along the lines you indicate about admirers of PARC, that they want AR restored untarnished.

And if there still are admirers of PARC after all the threads about it on SOLO, threads making clear the ineptness of the scholarship plus exhibiting Valliant in his full slipperiness, I'd expect that the desire to feel admiration is operative with most of them.

But the explanation doesn't satisfy me in regard to Peikoff. Peikoff has written two books, one of them under AR's crictical prodding; he's given many lecture courses and many speeches; and he's read multiple books. I frankly doubt the possibility of someone with his writing attainments and background of experience being able to read material such as appears in PARC and not know -- however "desperate to feel admiration" -- that the technical execution is dreadful, that it's an affront to the art of writing. I don't believe that Leonard Peikoff could have been that blind from wishful thinking. I think that there has to be more to it. I've commented before about his being in an awkward spot over how to handle the diaries. I suppose he thought that Valliant was the best chance he'd get to publish the diaries with enough window dressing and "exegesis" to distract from their by no means presenting Rand in a fully flattering light. But, still, if he had the basis to know in advance how badly done the technical aspects of Valliant's book writing would be, I do suspect a hidden wish to pay AR back for her never having taken him into her confidence -- and for her having had an affair with Nathaniel at all.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

The reason I've been bugging Mr. Valliant about those blatant appeals to subjectivity in "My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand" is precisely because they exemplify putting normative abstractions before cognitive abstractions.

Robert Campbell

PS. Mr. Valliant has become so careless in his reading that he's now tried to correct me on the order of the paragraphs in Dr. Peikoff's essay, when I'd already gotten them right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not going to post on SOLO, though I am registered as a member there and could post there.

Two recent posts, one by James Valliant and one by Chris Cathcart, I want to address, and will address here. Obviously both persons are reading this thread, so I expect they'll see the replies. And even if they don't see the replies, no matter, since I'm replying for the benefit of readers here.

James Valliant writes in this post:

As readers of these discussions can see for themselves, a pattern has emerged here.

Time after time, PARC's critics will throw out an objection only to have it batted down.

After a post or two, the objection is left in a pile of smoldering ruins.

At this point, the objection is merely dropped.

How illustrative of his distorting! What he calls "batt[ing] down" objections is instead his endless slipping off the hook until people become tired of bothering with whatever the current point is.

For instance, has he ever acknowledged how misleadingly he described the Penthouse Legend incident? Or that his statement is false that one could read Passion without knowing that Allan Blumenthal was the one who initiated the break between him and Rand? Or that it indeed was, contra Valliant's claim, Rand who initiated the break with Holzer?

Chris Cathcart writes in this post:

The whole point of the Brandens and PARC can be boiled down to a short, simple, essential point.

The Brandens claimed to have presented, from their personal, fallible, and human context, a depiction of Ayn Rand's life that aimed to be as objective as possible -- which, in their view, necessitated presenting her human flaws as part of the whole story.

Except it just didn't work out that way. The Brandens were, instead, used by Rand's and Objectivism's critics as the leading sources, upon publication of their bios/memoirs, the chief pieces of evidence that Rand was a deranged cult leader.

To whatever extent the Brandens' books were used that way, this is not the fault of the books. Neither of the Brandens' accounts of Rand presents her as "a deranged cult leader."

Central to their depiction, as used by her critics in this fashion, was their story of their own casting out from the movement. They presented this as Rand's unjustly and irrationally casting them out. Mr. Branden, in particular, was depicted in both accounts as having been backed into some kind of corner -- that he was going to be cast out no matter what. Rand's journals give total lie to this. For all we know, Ms. Branden's account was colored by Mr. Branden's own statements to her, probably omitting all those elements of the real story that revealed him to be the total creep that he was.

The statement is partly outright false, partly false by implication, and partly simply Chris' opinion. Nathaniel acknowledged even at the time that Rand was justified in breaking with him. On the other hand, yes, he was "backed into some kind of corner": Far from Rand's journals "giv[ing] total lie to this," they make clear that he was either going to have to give up his relationship with Patrecia or be cast out by Rand, that she would not accept his being romantically involved with Patrecia. As to "the total creep that he was," I'd agree that his behavior wasn't good, but "total creep" is Chris C's evaluation not any sort of demonstrable fact.

The Brandens presented their dismissal from the movement as a product mainly of Rand's deranged anger, and that their own dismissal was par for the course for everyone else dismissed from the movement.

I don't agree with the description of what either Branden presented. Nathaniel I think made Rand look more prone to irrationality than Barbara did, but even he doesn't present near the simplistic picture Chris describes.

It's not at all hard to understand how the Objectivism-is-a-cult critics latched onto the Branden accounts as potent fuel for their attacks.

That I'd grant; it isn't hard to understand. However, I repeat, their books' having been used in a selective way by persons hostile to Rand is not the fault of their books.

The Branden accounts would lend credence to those attacks. Now, either Objectivism is a cult and Rand was a deranged cult leader, which makes the Branden accounts useful, or these things are not the case, which means the Branden accounts are quite deceptive.

It isn't necessary in the least for Objectivism to be a cult and Rand "a deranged cult leader" for the Branden accounts to be useful. They're very useful -- and especially Barbara's book which is full of all kinds of material other than that pertaining to the break -- to readers interested in Objectivism and in the story of Rand's life but with no ax to grind of wanting to see Rand the way Rand haters want to see her. Nor are the Branden accounts "deceptive" unless to a reader wanting to be deceived. Again, such a reader's preference isn't the fault of the Branden accounts.

What is there to figure out here? Why are PARC's critics focusing on the irrelevant side issue of whether, to what extent, and what kinds of flaws that Rand had?

Because that issue isn't an "irrelevant side issue"!! THAT instead is the issue; in a word, truth is the issue.

The Branden accounts were crafted so as to elevate whatever flaws she had into a depiction of a deranged cult leader.

No, they were not thus "crafted."

Objectivism's and Rand's enemies picked up on this, no problem. Why do the remaining Branden apologists have such a hell of a time picking up on it?

"Branden apologists," blech. Talk about the presumption, endemic amongst Objectivists -- and, yes, it started with Ayn Rand -- that anyone who doesn't see it the way you do must be irrationally motivated. It couldn't be anyone's honest opinion, hmm, that: Both the Brandens' accounts, especially Barbara's, have merit biographically, that James Valliant wrote a very badly argued book which doesn't come near proving his case?

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly, I'm just waiting for him to get done with this next Great Work. There's no way he's got the juice to do anything new and relevant as far as the Old Testament. No way. He doesn't have near the firepower of a Veith or any other big dog like that. He should set his sights lower--airport books, maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laure,

I've replied to Jim Heaps-Nelson over there.

Robert Campbell

PS. As soon as Neil Parille (who is disgusted with Mr. Valliant at this juncture) and I leave SOLOP again, the "straw fire" will be over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert; I remember the smear by Diana of Chris Scaribarra but not the one by Valliant.

I think Chris S. is one the really good people in the Objectivist movement so your reminder lowered my opinion of Valliant even more.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laure,

I happen to agree with Robert's answer, since I have always found James Heaps-Nelsons's arguments and questions on PARC to be selective and ommissive in a leading manner. I have had to correct him on several occasions where he simply got the facts wrong, but had presented them as undisputed facts. (If you like, I can look up the posts. I can also find where he admitted he was wrong when faced with quotes, etc.)

Unlike the pro-PARC boneheads on Siberia Passion, I do not think he is sitting on a fence. I think he is doing the typical normative before cognitive thinking I keep harping on, where the thinker tries to fit the facts to a strongly felt evaluation and ignores the facts that do not support that evaluation.

From reading his posts, I get the feeling that he desperately wants Rand to be a heroine in the form he imagines her and not in the form she actually was. In his form, she needs to have an uncorrupted soul, morally perfect integrity and a whole slew of Objectivist oversimplifications. The only way to justify her shortcomings and fit them to the oversimplifications is to blame Rand's shortcomings on someone else. He needs a scapegoat and PARC fits the bill. PARC is so convoluted in sounding reasonable while manipulating a large arsenal of misleading rhetorical devices that it numbs the mind. In a smarmy manner, and on a minuscule proportion by comparison, it reminds me of reading Immanuel Kant.

But James H-N is very reasonable in most every other topic, most always properly identifying what something is before evaluating it. This collides harshly with the epistemological method of holding up an image of Rand as an absolute in his mind and looking about for facts that support this. I speculate, I know, because I am not in his head, but I believe that is why you don't see him joining tribes and always qualifying his statements in a manner that looks like he is sitting on the fence.

For the record, in my conception, I consider Rand more of a heroine than the Rand-perfect people do because I give her credit for doing the wonderful things she did not only against a hostile world, but in spite of the folly that all human beings are prone to when conflicting evaluations start short-circuiting their objectivity. On observing the world, it seems that the more strongly held the evaluation, the more intense the meltdown when it goes bad. When I look at how deeply Rand loved, I see a heroine—one that gives me great inspiration—in the fact that she did what little folly she did during the meltdown time and still stayed productive. I think most people would have stepped out into insanity or become violent and stopped producing altogether. Real wars—ones where people kill each other in massive numbers—are made of this.

I think those who ignore this heroic side of her and pretend it never existed, or worse, that it only existed in her mind and that she did not act on her values when they conflicted, insult her memory. If Rand valued, she acted. Even when she was wrong or overwhelmed.

Here is Robert's post. From the initial reading, I endorse every word. (And no, we are not in contact about this. I think he might even be surprised by my post.)

Big picture

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Thu, 2008-05-22 16:24.

Jim (H-N, that is),

Good to see you.

You raise legitimate points, though I think you should be careful about assuming that "Rand's critics" are all on the same page--either about AR the person, or about her ideas. I don't know why you keep doing this. Do you really imagine that Michael Stuart Kelly thinks of Rand the same way Edward Sorel does?

To your numbered points:

1. I agree with you wholeheartedly about this. And it is not a new element in these discussions. I drew attention to the revelations about NB's alleged sex problem and his BSing about it during my exchanges with Jim Valliant back in 2005. It's one of my very few points of agreement with Mr. Valliant.

You realize there is, from Mr. Valliant's point of view although maybe not from yours, a problem with the connection you are drawing.

Mr. Valliant maintains that anything critical of Ayn Rand that comes from Nathaniel Branden or Barbara Branden, and is not corroborated, on or off the record, by sources acceptable to himself, is an arbitrary assertion.

Therefore, he does not mention the 20-year curse in his book. It would be interesting to know whether he believes that Ayn Rand actually pronounced it. If he is true to his dictum about arbitrary assertions, he would have to say that NB's statement about the 20-year curse is neither true nor false, has no context, cannot be placed in a cognitive hierarchy, and is unworthy of further examination or evidence-gathering.

2. The journal entries, in my opinion, show Rand to be a lot of things. In pain, sorrowful, confused, resigned, resolved, perplexed, generous, angry, jealous (or insulted that her lover prefers an "inferior" woman), working overtime to understand, painfully out of it, grandiose (as when she considers how she might have been too much for him, but never how she might have been too little for him), and lots of other stuff besides. Hysterical, rarely. Keep in mind, though, that she was still engaging in self-presentation in these entries (some of which she drafted and rewrote). Also, Messrs. Valliant and Fahy held back some allegedly repetitive entries from July 1968.

3. The journal entries are an important new source of data. They take up less than a year, from the fall of 1967 into the summer of 1968. Mr. Valliant's book provides precious little new evidence about Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden's state of mind between 1957 and 1967. In general, Mr. Valliant has done remarkably little work of any kind to obtain new information, beyond getting access to those journal entries. Mr. Valliant occasionally makes bold claims about NB's motives going all the way back to 1950, but what does he have to go on when he makes them?

Now to the big issues:

Was NB "in therapy with" AR, at least partly under false pretenses? Sure, he was bullshitting sometimes, and stalling sometimes. But there was also a level on which he thought, or at least wanted to believe, that the "therapy" might help.

Does therapy work when the client is bullshitting and stalling? As a rule, no.

But if we are interested in the big picture, we also need to ask whether

--Therapy works when the "therapist" lacks competence at it (the journal entries, with their elaborate attempts at philosophical diagnosis and their frequent failure to notice the obvious, do not attest to AR's effectiveness in this role)

--Therapy works when the client's decision to discontinue it may be construed as proof of bad motives on his part

--Therapy works when the therapist is the client's

-- Secret lover and still occasional sex partner

-- Business partner

-- Boss (AR wasn't NB's manager, but she was the leader of a movement in which he played a subordinate role; indeed, she sometimes thought, and Mr. Valliant enthusiastically agrees, that his biggest financial asset was her name, and he wouldn't have amounted to anything without her)

For instance... if the therapist is the client's secret lover, and in fact the best course of action for the client is to end his sexual relationship with her and take up with a younger, far less intellectual woman whom the therapist doesn't think highly of, can the therapist be counted on to encourage or support this course of action?

Today's codes of professional ethics for counselors and therapists treat therapy provided by a lover, a business partner, or a boss as involving gross conflicts of interest, and therefore unethical.

Of all of the issues to which Mr. Valliant appears to be blind, I am convinced that this is the biggest one. When the head of a movement offers therapy to subordinates, this is commonly (and rightly) taken as evidence that the movement is a cult.

I don't conclude from this that AR was running a cult (because I don't believe that all of the requirements for cultism were met during the NBI days), but if you want to provide fodder for those who think AR was a deranged cult-leader, keep harping on her provision of "therapy" and they'll have enough to keep them occupied for the next several centuries.

OK, now another biggie. Is there enough evidence to establish that Frank O'Connor was an alcoholic? If the story about rows of empty liquor bottles in his studio is accurate, there's presumptive evidence that he had a drinking problem. I'd like to see, in detail, all of the evidence about his drinking (with chronology firmly established). In the meantime, Mr. Valliant's reliance on unnamed sources (you know, the kind he says he never uses, then says he uses only when they corroborate what Jeff Walker says even though he insists that Walker's book is a crock, then says he must protect from reprisals by people who don't like his book, then... well... we'll see what he comes up with next) and utterly free-floating speculation about Frank O'Connor's outlook on life and love don't constitute an effective rebuttal.

Is the evidence about Frank O'Connor's drinking of better quality than the evidence about Mr. Perigo's drinking? I would say yes, since I have not been presented with even indirect evidence of Mr. Perigo's approximate daily consumption. But I have not inquired much into Mr. Perigo's drinking. How much he drinks, and under what circumstances, and with what motives, affect his health and well-being. They might affect the well-being of people around him to some extent. That's about it, as far as I'm concerned.

When I wrote to several top people at TAS, encouraging them to reverse their decision to invite Mr. Perigo as a speaker, I made no reference to his drinking. I made reference to his bad character, his near-constant recourse to abusive language, and his obvious hankering to restore esthetic policing to the Objectivist world. I also reminded them of his open and long-standing despisal of both them and their organization.

On the last one, you're going to need to get a lot more specific than you are now.

If you're referring to the break between AR and NB, I am convinced that a break was inevitable under the circumstances, as they stood by 1967 if not earlier. AR was justified in not wanting to have anything more to do with him. He'd jilted her and lied to her.

In the longer run, do you see NB ultimately occupying the role that eventually went to Leonard Peikoff? I can't. Indeed, NB and AR might both have been better off, had they gone their separate ways around 1960 or 1961.

So, no, AR didn't owe anyone a permanent position in her life, or in any organized activities of hers. Do you think that critics of Mr. Valliant's book really believe in some Randian obligation to keep NB and BB in positions of authority around her? I never have. I doubt that either NB or BB has, for a very very long time, but if in doubt you could always ask them.

However... if you're saying that AR was well-advised to drag all of her close associates into a public denunciation, and demand loyalty from her readers without bothering to tell them the half of what had been going on... Nope. No way. I don't think she ever stopped paying for that decision, and people like Mr. Valliant are doing their part to ensure that it will keep on roiling Rand-land, nigh on 40 years later.

Robert Campbell

Now, about my thread keeping the flame of PARC alive, Robert is right again. It is a straw fire and I figured it would be. It will extinguish soon. Then there will be a concrete fact to point at: that the straw fire only happens when intellectuals of the level of Robert Campbell, Neil Parille or William Scherk directly engage Valliant and contest him. Valliant almost always wears them out with mind games, too. There is almost no interest in PARC otherwise.

As I stated in the title of this thread, nobody is taking PARC seriously anymore.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I agree with most of Robert's post as well. I disagree with your evaluation of Jim H-N. To me, he seems reasonable on the PARC issue, and I don't think he "desperately wants Rand to be a heroine in the form he imagines her and not in the form she actually was" at all.

... I think he is doing the typical normative before cognitive thinking I keep harping on, where the thinker tries to fit the facts to a strongly felt evaluation and ignores the facts that do not support that evaluation....

Michael, you bring up this cognitive/normative thing a lot, but you should think about the possibility that you make this accusation when you disagree with someone's normative evaluations.

I'm reminded of a scene that I think was in a Woody Allen movie. Husband and wife in their separate therapy sessions are asked, "How often are you intimate with your partner?" One says, "Oh, constantly, maybe twice a week" and the other says, "Almost never, maybe twice a week."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting JHN's post on SOLOP:

When reading some of the arguments made by Robert Campbell and others elsewhere, I have to wonder why the big picture is not considered. Here are a few things I value about PARC:

1. It provides a context for Rand's infamous "impotence" statement on the day of her break with Nathaniel of which the Branden biographies provide none. The biographies are positively misleading on this score.

2. It provides Rand's journal entries which show her to be anything but hysterical.

As has been mentioned by others, including, I believe, George Smith, there have been historical figures who have written private journals expecting that their contents would one day be made public, and, with that in mind, had tried to cast themselves in a very flattering light, sometimes a dishonestly flattering light. My understanding is that there are some famous people who may have edited or rewritten their own histories in their "journals" to make themselves look better, and to make others look worse.

There's also the possibility that people other than James Valliant would think that certain journal entries, which were not included in PARC, are quite relevant to the "big picture." Personally, I'd need to see all of Rand's journal pages -- the pages themselves or high-resolution scans of both sides of each page -- before agreeing that anyone could reasonably conclude that Rand was "anything but hysterical" (or that they could conclude anything else about the "big picture").

They show an honest searching for the source of Branden's professed problems and an honest desire to help. This goes on for a period of years.

Rand's journal entries apparently do not show her engaged in contemplating how her own actions may have contributed to the problems in her relationship with Branden.

Incidentally, I asked about that here. James Valliant replied, slitheringly, in my opinion, here. And I elaborated further on the issue here, including on one of the reasons why I don't trust Valliant.

3. It provides a cross-examination of the mental stability/psychological assertions made of Rand by Nathaniel and Barbara concerning the years following the publication of Atlas Shrugged.

Until all researchers, including Rand's harshest critics, have unfettered access to all of her journal pages and other original documents, I see no reason to trust that the pages which have been selected and transcribed represent an accurate picture of Rand or the events she wrote about.

A pattern is beginning to develop among Rand's critics that is more an indictment of their inability to see big picture issues than an effective criticism of Rand.

Why not just tackle the big issues head on?

Was Branden in therapy with Rand for years under false pretenses?

I think Branden was in "therapy" under false pretenses. I think that a better question, though, is why was one lover receiving "therapy" from another? Why did neither recognize that one should not act as a "therapist" for the other, especially since the "therapist" lacked professional qualifications?

Did Barbara have enough evidence to conclude that Frank was an alcoholic? Was this evidence as airtight as her conclusion that Perigo is an alcoholic?

Did she conclude that Frank was "an alcoholic"?

As for Pigero, Barbara has said that she believes that he has often been "befuddled by alcohol." She says that her praise of the "Drooling Beast" article, in which James Kilbourne accused Pigero of alcoholism, was based on her mistaken assumption that Pigero allowed it to be published on his own site because he agreed that he had a problem with alcohol. And Pigero himself has publicly blamed some of his friendship-destroying temper tantrums on his consumption of too much alcohol (keep in mind that he later edited some of the posts that contained his most scurrilous attacks on friends and allies). I think that's enough evidence to suspect that he's had some problems with alcohol.

I wonder how much evidence someone like James Heaps Nelson, and others loyal to Rand, generally need before believing that people other than Frank or Pigero may have abused alcohol. Pigero and his pals don't seem to have a problem talking about the degree of Mario Lanza's alleged drinking problems while presenting no more evidence to support their views than what Barbara or others have presented regarding Frank or Pigero. The SOLOP infants have no problem implying that William Buckley was befuddled by booze. They'd laugh if a different novelist/philosopher's zealots claimed that her cuckolded husband couldn't possibly have turned to alcohol, and that he had rows of empty liquor bottles for mixing his artist's paints.

Why are they so selective in their concern about who accuses whom of problems with alcohol, and in which standards of evidence are acceptable?

Why are others allowed personal preferences in who they choose to spend time with, but Rand is not allowed her considered judgments in this matter based on her context and her interests?

What the hell is JHN talking about? Does he seriously think that people who are critical of some of Rand's behavior are not also critical of others who behaved in similar ways?

J

Edited by Jonathan
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