Diana Mertz Hsieh Meets The Wall of Hypocrisy


Recommended Posts

He obviously didn't know that Nathaniel championed ATCAG for months and months before it was published or that George typed it all out on Branden's old typewriter or that Nash published it as well as The Psychology of Self Esteem. A good thing too. I don't think he'd have survived the shock.

Probably not, but bear in mind that Comrade Sonia continues to recommend the book, and she's certainly aware of the taint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 309
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Checkingpremises.org site has changed a bit, the FAQ is gone, and some essays by its “Principals” are up. I suggest “Subjectivist Objectivists” by Chip Joyce for a taste of highly distilled, concentrated cultism written at what I estimate to be an 8th grade level.

http://checkingpremises.org/subjobj

The problem Checking Premises confronts is the Subjectivist Objectivists. They used to argue that Objectivism is whatever they wish it to be (à la David Kelley) and that did not work well for them.

That’s the opening line. But perhaps he’s a newbie and just needs an editor.

No? Uh-oh.

Chip Joyce was in the first graduating class of the Ayn Rand Insitute's Objectivist Graduate Center, where he studied full-time under the professorships of Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Dr. Harry Binswanger, and Mr. Peter Schwartz. He has studied Objectivism since 1987.

The discussion of this was restarted on OO by an ARIan who started a new thread. He objected to the original version of this essay, but likes the revision. He complains of multiple Facebook defriendings following his original critique. I checked, and the lines I quote above are still there, but are no longer the opening lines, so in case someone in the future wants to accuse me of Valliantquoting, I'm noting the change here. The essay is now longer and thus even more laughable than before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also of particular interest is Rand’s “To Whom It May Concern”, posted unapologetically.

http://www.checkingpremises.org/towhom

One extra detail, note at the bottom of the page:

Posted with permission of Dr. Leonard Peikoff and the Estate of Ayn Rand. All Rights Reserved.

Does this mean the site has the papal blessing? Did he give a special dispensation, or is this something that generally has blanket approval to be reproduced?

BTW, his blessing of Comrade Sonia is still available to hear, though her name his misspelled in the description:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... so in case someone in the future wants to accuse me of Valliantquoting...

Speaking of Valliant, I'm thinking that his "soul of a rapist" comment could be put to good use if Peikoff doesn't retract his position on women not having the right deny or revoke sexual consent when in a man's hotel room at night.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Valliant, I'm thinking that his "soul of a rapist" comment could be put to good use if Peikoff doesn't retract his position on women not having the right deny or revoke sexual consent when in a man's hotel room at night.

Dayamm™, wish I'd thought of that one. Maybe switch it to "rhetorician of rapists"? So what do you think the odds are? Equal odds of retraction, double down, or silence? That's about where I'm at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Doctor. Some ironic highlights.

From To Whom It May Concern:

They did not communicate with me again. Instead, they called in two mutual friends and asked that they intervene, that they persuade me to accept the plan and "to help NBI"-- while Mrs. Branden began to utter veiled threats and undefined accusations against me . . . Such is the sordid story, as of this present date.

end quote

I don’t believe that sordid tale for a moment. The “veiled threats and undefined accusations” were clearly known to Ayn.

From To Whom It May Concern:

I have written this long account in order to make the situation intelligible and to explain why I did not act sooner . . . and, therefore, wouldn't it be better to cover up the truth about the Brandens, i.e., to adopt a policy of pragmatic expediency and deception?

end quote

Which is exactly what Ayn Rand was doing: covering up.

From To Whom It May Concern:

I do not fake reality and never have. I do not seek or want any value that requires such faking. I hold that no value can be achieved that way. I hold that that way is neither practical nor moral.

end quote

She wanted, with all her heart, for Nathaniel to be true to her. She wanted her cake and wanted to eat it too, after Nathan rejected her.

From To Whom It May Concern:

As far as I am concerned, I have made an error of knowledge and must be prepared to take the consequences. Whatever these might be, they are never as hard to bear as the consequences of a breach of morality.

end quote

I see this paragraph as a moral breach considering the circumstances of taking another woman’s husband, showing him to your husband, and doing whatever the Czarina Rand wants. I am also reminded of Henry the Eighth in "The Tudors."

From To Whom It May Concern:

But a man of Mr. Branden's knowledge cannot afford a single contradiction; the inner conflict becomes too great and too explosive:

end quote

The same goes for Ayn Rand. What a rift in her own psyche must have occurred and it was all self inflicted. It is a wonder she did not go insane.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Hsieh is definitely on the defensive now:

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2012/01/on-some-recent-controversies.html

Oh, the irony:

If Objectivists don't nourish and protect that kind of rational culture, then a self-destructive culture of suspicion, hostility, and dogmatism will take its place. Then, any disagreement -- even if trivial, even if outside the scope of Objectivism -- will become grounds for denouncing someone else as dishonest and attempting to ostracize them. Any connection with a condemned person will be grounds for your condemnation too. People will fear speaking their minds, and some will even forego thinking for themselves.

That kind of repressive culture actively undermines the virtues of rationality, justice, and independence. It's not compatible with the fundamental principles of Objectivism, nor is it the kind of culture that can revitalize America.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Doctor. Some ironic highlights.

From To Whom It May Concern:

They did not communicate with me again. Instead, they called in two mutual friends and asked that they intervene, that they persuade me to accept the plan and "to help NBI"-- while Mrs. Branden began to utter veiled threats and undefined accusations against me . . . Such is the sordid story, as of this present date.

end quote

I don’t believe that sordid tale for a moment. The “veiled threats and undefined accusations” were clearly known to Ayn.

From To Whom It May Concern:

I have written this long account in order to make the situation intelligible and to explain why I did not act sooner . . . and, therefore, wouldn't it be better to cover up the truth about the Brandens, i.e., to adopt a policy of pragmatic expediency and deception?

end quote

Which is exactly what Ayn Rand was doing: covering up.

From To Whom It May Concern:

I do not fake reality and never have. I do not seek or want any value that requires such faking. I hold that no value can be achieved that way. I hold that that way is neither practical nor moral.

end quote

She wanted, with all her heart, for Nathaniel to be true to her. She wanted her cake and wanted to eat it too, after Nathan rejected her.

From To Whom It May Concern:

As far as I am concerned, I have made an error of knowledge and must be prepared to take the consequences. Whatever these might be, they are never as hard to bear as the consequences of a breach of morality.

end quote

I see this paragraph as a moral breach considering the circumstances of taking another woman’s husband, showing him to your husband, and doing whatever the Czarina Rand wants. I am also reminded of Henry the Eighth in "The Tudors."

From To Whom It May Concern:

But a man of Mr. Branden's knowledge cannot afford a single contradiction; the inner conflict becomes too great and too explosive:

end quote

The same goes for Ayn Rand. What a rift in her own psyche must have occurred and it was all self inflicted. It is a wonder she did not go insane.

Peter Taylor

You're merely assuming she was above board and honest, not lying through her teeth. I imagine just as love was "exception making" to her, disowned love was too--namely, she had the right to lie to protect herself (and her privacy) from the liar, etc. Out of her love for her magnum opus she had the right to misrepresent herself to the world to show the world how well her philosophy worked. It was her altruistic sacrifice to the greater good--supposedly or not so supposedly. I think she tried to make her philosophy as such work by force feeding it to people, herself included. The result was a gigantic mess.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Hsieh is definitely on the defensive now: http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2012/01/on-some-recent-controversies.html Oh, the irony:
If Objectivists don't nourish and protect that kind of rational culture, then a self-destructive culture of suspicion, hostility, and dogmatism will take its place. Then, any disagreement -- even if trivial, even if outside the scope of Objectivism -- will become grounds for denouncing someone else as dishonest and attempting to ostracize them. Any connection with a condemned person will be grounds for your condemnation too. People will fear speaking their minds, and some will even forego thinking for themselves. That kind of repressive culture actively undermines the virtues of rationality, justice, and independence. It's not compatible with the fundamental principles of Objectivism, nor is it the kind of culture that can revitalize America.
Robert Campbell

Hsieh is now taking flak from the orthodox Pekovians. Very interesting. Consider this passage from the critique of Hsieh at http://checkingpremises.org/openletter:

There was much uproar about Diana Hsieh’s physical and verbal demeanor in her webcast indictment of Dr. Peikoff [re: compulsory jury duty]. I completely agree that the attitude, demeanor, and content that she displayed in her webcast was egregiously disrespectful of a man who deserves far better treatment (even if the method of her disagreement had not been invalid) from anyone who knows who he is. But, equally egregious, was the context-dropping, rationalistic, philosophically non-objective, and intellectually cavalier method of thought with which she approached and executed her consideration and evaluation of Peikoff’s podcast remarks.

I haven't seen this much second-hand rhetoric in a long time. Under the tab "About Us," the "Principals" are listed as Claudio Caballero, Chip Joyce, John Kagebein, and Klaus Nordby. Does anyone know anything about these clownish characters?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the tab "About Us," the "Principals" are listed as Claudio Caballero, Chip Joyce, John Kagebein, and Klaus Nordby. Does anyone know anything about these clownish characters?

George,

I asked the same question a while back, except I didn't say "clownish." The reason is that I believe these are kids (or young adults who still have a lotta livin' to do).

The Peikoff-Schwartz-Binswanger playbook verbatim from decades ago is kind of like stepping into a time warp to revisit a nasty hangover. But I believe these kids are sincere.

Since I know nothing about them, I can only speculate. Do they have a mentor guiding their efforts? Maybe. In that case, I expect little Randroids to grow up into big Randroids. Except for those who are excommunicated over time.

Do they exist as merely a group of kids around an idea? If so, I expect the Lord of the Flies syndrome to kick in sooner or later and some serious power games + damage to one of their own to ensue before they disperse--when some get absorbed by the grown-ups and others get disgusted and walk away.

One thing kind of tickles me in all this. The Salem witch trials were kicked off by kids. Then the grown-ups joined and started kicking some serious butt. I see a repetition of history as a distinct possibility here (with all due adaptations, of course).

This organized attack on Hsieh stems from a culture of scapegoating and excommunication. The kids are merely doing what they have been taught.

The irony is that Hsieh has the soul of a scapegoater of colleagues (ones who used to be her friends) par excellence and has done her own share. So she is an excellent role model of how to do it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They kinda remind me somewhat of me in 1968 just after "The Break" but with no Internet. It has to do with the felt need to take a moral stand with poor understanding of what that would be really about. It can take some time to out grow this stuff. It's a mixture of ignorance, courage and conformity.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They kinda remind me somewhat of me in 1968 just after "The Break" but with no Internet. It has to do with the felt need to take a moral stand with poor understanding of what that would be really about. It can take some time to out grow this stuff. It's a mixture of ignorance, courage and conformity.

--Brant

Brant, Baal never answered my question about his sig line, and Ninth never put back Rowan Atkinson, so I will start in on you about your avatar,

Is it just me, or are you ringing the Liberty Bell whilst wearing a witch's hat? (The pic is very dark on my screen, mostly silhouette)

Since I realized Selene is not in fact a female organist who wears a yarmulke I have liked to keep these things straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They kinda remind me somewhat of me in 1968 just after "The Break" but with no Internet. It has to do with the felt need to take a moral stand with poor understanding of what that would be really about. It can take some time to out grow this stuff. It's a mixture of ignorance, courage and conformity.

--Brant

Brant, Baal never answered my question about his sig line, and Ninth never put back Rowan Atkinson, so I will start in on you about your avatar,

Is it just me, or are you ringing the Liberty Bell whilst wearing a witch's hat? (The pic is very dark on my screen, mostly silhouette)

Since I realized Selene is not in fact a female organist who wears a yarmulke I have liked to keep these things straight.

Looks like a battle tomahawk to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They kinda remind me somewhat of me in 1968 just after "The Break" but with no Internet. It has to do with the felt need to take a moral stand with poor understanding of what that would be really about. It can take some time to out grow this stuff. It's a mixture of ignorance, courage and conformity.

--Brant

Brant, Baal never answered my question about his sig line, and Ninth never put back Rowan Atkinson, so I will start in on you about your avatar,

Is it just me, or are you ringing the Liberty Bell whilst wearing a witch's hat? (The pic is very dark on my screen, mostly silhouette)

Since I realized Selene is not in fact a female organist who wears a yarmulke I have liked to keep these things straight.

My avatar is not a person but a picture of a cheap roadside sculpture a friend took here in Tucson. I've yet to see the actual thing and it is probably gone now. An actual pic of me taken in Vietnam's Mekong Delta in, I think, Oct. 1966 can be seen on SOLO. I can't put it up here because of a size limitation.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They kinda remind me somewhat of me in 1968 just after "The Break" but with no Internet. It has to do with the felt need to take a moral stand with poor understanding of what that would be really about. It can take some time to out grow this stuff. It's a mixture of ignorance, courage and conformity.

--Brant

Brant, Baal never answered my question about his sig line, and Ninth never put back Rowan Atkinson, so I will start in on you about your avatar,

Is it just me, or are you ringing the Liberty Bell whilst wearing a witch's hat? (The pic is very dark on my screen, mostly silhouette)

Since I realized Selene is not in fact a female organist who wears a yarmulke I have liked to keep these things straight.

Looks like a battle tomahawk to me.

A tomahawk, I should have known. Are there no limits to your armoury?

Getting scared

Carol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tomahawk, I should have known. Are there no limits to your armoury?

Getting scared

Carol

We just got these in this mornings internet President's Day Sale...a lot of them came from Libya...

FA_22_Raptor.jpg

fs-mistral-l9013.jpg

thumb_EFV.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I see that over on SOLO, Dan Edge has posted an apology to Pigero:

I'd like to apologize to Lindsay Perigo for some of the things I've said publicly about him in the past. While I believe he sometimes deserves criticism for his abrasive style of communication, I see now that his heart (and mind) is in the right place, and that he has been an effective Watchdog for the Objectivist community.

That reminds me of this little sketch that I made a few years ago of Pigero in his role as Objectivist Watchdog:

238866785_7387e1a9b8.jpg

Dan continued:

This point was brought home to me after the creation of the checkingpremises.org website, a self-proclaimed Objectivist Watchdog site, which was created solely to slander professional academic Dr. Diana Hsieh.

Comrade Sonia is a "professional academic"? Interesting. I was under the impression that she was unemployed, that she has never been employed profesionally in an academic capacity, and that she appears to have treated earning her PhD as an end where most other people would treat it as a means. Does posting Youtube clips while receiving some supporting donations from viewers make one a "professional academic"?

These morons are after the busybody Hsiehs of all folks -- while Perigo beats off pedophiles, O-lyers, and other REAL enemies of Objectivism.

It doesn't surprise me to hear that Pigero "beats off" pedophiles, but which of you of traitorous O-lyers has been sneaking around behind the rest of our backs and letting him beat you off?

I may sometimes strongly disagree with his methods, and I reserve the right to bitch him out if he is being an asshole, but I know now that Lindsay Perigo is fundamentally on my side. He fights the battles I don't want to fight, and I appreciate him for that.

I love that. Pigero is "fighting battles." Heh.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...that brought real tears to my eyes...

cryingwithlaughfter.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than slandering Hsieh, the purpose of checkingpremises.org appears to be that of canonizing Leonard Peikoff. The purveyors seem to be on a crusade against anyone who would suggest that Lenny is not Rand reincarnated.

One article posted in the Commentary section specifically targets Hsieh in its title. Another article in the same section, Subjectivist Objectivists, also singles out Hsieh. It offers this bizarre criterion for the class of miscreants it condemns:

This type of Objectivist used to argue that Objectivism is whatever they wish it to be (à la David Kelley) and that did not work well for them. So now they mouth acceptance of the point expressed in “Fact and Value” (Peikoff, 1989) that Objectivism is a “closed system," thinking that as long as Ayn Rand did not write anything contrary on a given topic, they can claim any belief as being an "application" of Objectivism. Effectively, whether they are aware of it or not, this type of person accepts the tenets of Objectivist [sic] but discards its method of objectivity. Hence, the Subjectivist Objectivist.

Interesting. The definition of “Subjectivist Objectivist” used to be someone who did not accept the crap about Objectivism being “closed,” but this article doesn't even mention “tolerationists.” I feel left out in the cold, all of the sudden. How times have changed.

The same article includes this remarkable claim:

The bitter truth, for the Subjectivist Objectivists, is that they need Dr. Peikoff and his authority pertaining to Objectivism, just as the looters needed Hank Rearden. Objectivism, as both a systematized philosophy and a movement, exists because of Dr. Peikoff. The only reason there is a possibility to profess to be an "Objectivist"-whatever and to hang a shingle, is because of him. They also know they need his sanction, for as long as he is alive.

Gee whiz. Peikoff created Objectivism as a systemized philosophy and a movement. Really? I had no idea. How selfless of Lenny to let Nathaniel Branden take the credit for all these years when it was really him orchestrating everything behind the scenes at NBI. Perhaps he means that Peikoff and his incessant sermonizing should be credited for the present dismal state of the Objectivist movement. .I’ll give him that.

For me, the essence of a “subjectivist objectivist” is anyone who thinks he needs anyone else’s sanction for his existence or the conclusions of his own mind. That’s the hallmark of someone who treats Objectivism as a religion. That is the essence of someone who has no clue about what it means to look at reality independently..

And then the author adds this remark:

Leonard Peikoff took months, years, and even decades to formulate his thoughts before presenting them to the public. How passé.

Now that’s hysterical. Peikoff recently admitted, in regard to the date rape issue, that he screwed up because he began frothing at the mouth based purely on emotions without thinking through the issue first. Months, years and decades? More like milliseconds in many cases, which is probably why so many of his comments sound as if he had not thought them out. By his own admission, he hasn’t.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had some additional thoughts about this comment in the above-referenced article, “Subjectivist Objectivists." (See my prior post for the link.) The author says:” Objectivism, as both a systematized philosophy and a movement, exists because of Dr. Peikoff.”

The author of that remarkably ignorant comment includes the following in his bio:

[The author] was in the first graduating class of the Ayn Rand Insitute's Objectivist Graduate Center, where he studied full-time under the professorships of Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Dr. Harry Binswanger, and Mr. Peter Schwartz. He has studied Objectivism since 1987.

I have to wonder: Does the curriculum at the ARI Objectivist Graduate Center incorporate courses on the Stalinist practice of rewriting history? Or do the teachers there simply adopt Stalinist methods?

Most OL members are aware that Peikoff never tires of telling his adoring flock that they should not read any books by Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, David Kelley or any other “tolerationist.” The only sanctioned book that discusses the NBI years is Valliant’s Passion of the Ayn Rand Critics. There are a couple of references to Branden’s “Basic Principles” course in Valliant’s book, but obviously all of his focus is on Branden’s philosophical differences with Rand.

How would the OGC’s students ever know of the key role Branden played in offering the first systematic presentation of Objectivism and launching the Objectivist movement? Peikoff and his lackeys would clearly be unlikely to disabuse their students of their misconceptions regarding Objectivist history.

Peikoff may well be deliberately fostering this poor, pathetic writer’s distorted viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'll grow out of it (I hope). I did. But I was seduced by Rand and Branden and the NBI experience of the 1960s. I don't understand how Peikoff pulled it off. Movement lite.

--Brant

but never that bad-ugh!

Well, he certainly could not have done it without the Ayn Rand seal of approval; but then again, neither could Branden. In Peikoff's case, of course, he had to fake his credentials--alter his ID of 'legal heir' to say 'intellectual heir' and hope no one noticed. Sure enough, no one noticed--until it was too late to make any difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis, concerning #46 and #47:

The idea that Objectivism as a systematized philosophy and as a movement exists because of Dr. Peikoff is not an idea fastened on ignorance of the history of the philosophy and the movement. The view was put forward (in the one example known to me) by Yaron Brook last summer in his presentation “The Objectivist Movement: 50 Years Later.”

I am personally more settled about what is a philosophy (and, as you know, I’m pretty strict about what philosophy is which) than about what is a philosophical movement. The proposition that without Peikoff’s efforts Objectivism as a systematized philosophy would not exist was a proposition put forward by Brook last summer. That was mainly an acknowledgement that OPAR was a systematic presentation of Rand’s philosophy. I remember that from the ’60’s I had thought, “but Rand, you need a grand systematic book-length, pure exposition. Where is your Being and Time or Being and Nothingness or Process and Reality?” She seemed to think somewhat along those lines too, as she would say now and then that she was working on such a book. As life looked to be running out soon, she said that Peikoff’s ’76 lecture series The Philosophy of Objectivism was an accurate systematic presentation, and it was announced that he would be developing it into a book. When she died, I sent him a note encouraging him in this work. He delivered what I expected (less high-brow than those books mentioned above, but you have to make choices on that), and I think Rand would smile to him as I smile to him for that.

Perhaps Rand didn’t need such a book to have her philosophy survive. Plato did not have such a book, and he did all right. Plato’s philosophy, however, was pretty wildly open-ended, kind of like Nietzsche, really. As of Atlas Shrugged, Rand’s philosophy was a lot more systematic than theirs. Rand’s philosophy as presented in the fiction monologues collected in For the New Intellectual, even that fairly unsystematic and incomplete presentation was not nearly so wildly open to interpretation and fantastical development as Plato or Nietzsche.

Be that as it may, Rand got a systematic and more complete presentation of her philosophy in OPAR than had been available in FNI. It has contributed to the survival and understanding of her philosophy as she had developed it. Brook thought that until OPAR was produced and published there was, in some way, not an Objectivist philosophy. I think he had the idea that without a summa such as, say, Process and Reality, you don’t have your philosophy fully systematized and seen in it’s fullness. But his remarks were oral and a little informal here and there. I’m sure he would be more exact if he were to put pen to paper for publication.

Brook indicated that after Rand died, he and others had wondered how much Rand’s novels would continue to be read. He seemed to think that the Ayn Rand Institute had helped enormously with the sales of those books (in 2009 and beyond, there had been boosts from elsewhere, he realized). I don’t know how big the boost from ARI has been, but I certainly always applauded their essay contests on Rand’s novels. Brook told the story of how years ago ARI had gotten into the enter-academia business (for scholars after the generation of established academics Gotthelf and Lennox). Many of the good things that have happened on that front, whether scholarly books or positions at universities and colleges, have happened in part by sustained ARI (including Peikoff) plan. I imagine Brook was squarely right about that.

As to philosophic movements, well, there was the logical positivist movement. Not just a school, it is said, but a philosophic movement (not to be confused with a political movement). I’m inclined to think that what was of most value were the movements in the individual minds in that “movement” and the influence they had on each other and later thinkers. I agree with the line attributed to Newton, “the world is moved by the power of patient thinking.”

The “Objectivist movement”? If that is something initiated by an institution NBI, perhaps it is something kept going by subsequent institutions such as ARI and David Kelley’s institute. Or for that matter, by the institution that is this site.

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