"Fact and Value," the Ayn Rand Institute, and the Anthem Foundation

[Robert Campbell]

I’ll leave their various statements, inconstant or constant, on their various issues to them.

Perhaps Stephen Boydstun treats all published work by Leonard Peikoff, Robert Mayhew, Tara Smith, and others in the ARI orbit this same way?

As he comparably treats the published work of David Kelley, and of other persons who tend to favor Kelley's point of view?

In other words, maybe he just leaves "all their various statements, inconstant or constant, on their various issues to them."

A strange policy, to be sure, but one that would explain his lack of engagement with the specifics of Peikoff's work, or of the published work of the others.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Robert Campbell lists some bad behavior "on the part of Leonard Peikoff and others":

[....] Deliberate noncitation.  Purposeful relegation to unpersonhood.  Rattling on as to how those who do as Peikoff would not have them do are nullifying their entire means of cognition and will be relegated to rungs of hell.  Grossly dishonest argumentation on multiple levels (do you really think, for instance, that "Fact and Value" is a little bitty essay about objectivity?).  Commissioning unacknowledged rewrites of Ayn Rand's unpublished writing and speech.  Kicking out a contributor to your organization for objecting to a minor historical claim made by one of your protégés.

  

Regarding the issue between Peikoff and McCaskey, I think that both saw that as more significant than "objecting to a minor historical claim."

McCaskey wrote in his resignation letter -- link:

The historical accounts as presented are often inaccurate, and more accurate accounts would be difficult to reconcile with the philosophical point the author is claiming to make. [Emphasis added.]

Peikoff said in his Monday, August 30, 2010 11:24 AM email to Arline Mann (copied at the above link):

By the way, from the emails I have seen, his [McCaskey's]

disagreements are not limited to details, but often go to the heart of the

philosophic principles at issue. [Emphasis added.]

In essence, his behavior amounts to: Peikoff is misguided, Harriman is

misguided, M knows Objectivism better than either. Or else: Objectivism on

these issues is inadequate, and M is the one pointing the flaws out.

In the list of bad things done by Peikoff and Co., I think that I would rank the publication of The Logical Leap as #1 because of the potential long-range result in Objectivist muddles on epistemology, and damage to the prospects of dialogue with good scientists, IF that book is taken seriously after Peikoff's death.

Ellen

[9thdoctor]

Larry and I went to a number of shows at Kerry O'Quinn's also.

I wasn't familiar with the name before, but it turns out this person has a website where he's hosting videos of Ayn Rand's appearances on Johnny Carson, something I haven't seen until now. I just saw the link on OO, I gather this is very new. So far it's pretty buggy, and the picture quality is only so-so, but who's complaining?

http://kerryoquinn.com/ayn_rand.html

The Rand interview isn't on YouTube, but this is, a thingamajig that was meant to play before movies in the NBI movie series.

I imagine the fashion show was just spliced on, I don't know, it just got pretty weird there.

[Backlighting]

I enjoyed the AR clip from the Carson show. Thanks much.

It would be nice if it was uploaded to UTUBE

[Robert Campbell]

In the list of bad things done by Peikoff and Co., I think that I would rank the publication of The Logical Leap as #1 because of the potential long-range result in Objectivist muddles on epistemology, and damage to the prospects of dialogue with good scientists, IF that book is taken seriously after Peikoff's death.

I'm aware that the historical claim John McCaskey was contesting has implications for a philosophical claim that David Harriman was putting forward in The Logical Leap.

However, the claim in question appears in a book by a Peikoff protégé. Not by Peikoff, let alone by Rand.

Therefore, by Leonard Peikoff's stated policy, nothing that Harriman says about Galileo's manner of forming scientific concepts could ever be "part of Objectivism." Not by Ayn Rand, published 28 years after her death, etc. etc.

Whereas Ayn Rand's denunciations of libertarians and libertarianism can without much strain officially be counted as "part of Objectivism." Hence the incomparably greater gravity of "sanctioning" libertarianism—or so one would think.

Of course, Peikoff's unstated policy holds that Leonard Peikoff is Ayn Rand's vicar on earth, therefore most of what Peikoff says had damn well better be deferred to as "part of Objectivism"; any work by a disciple on which Peikoff confers his blessing must also be deferred to as "part of Objectivism"; and nothing by any now-banished rival of Peikoff's, regardless of admissibility under the official definition, will actually qualify as "part of Objectivism."

Meanwhile, Peikoff's complaint that McCaskey has criticized core Objectivist principles has gone unsupported, either by identifying the principles or by citing any of McCaskey's criticisms. In the absence of further evidence, the most plausible conclusion is that McCaskey's criticisms, whatever their precise scope, were sharply wounding to Leonard Peikoff's ego.

The Logical Leap won't recommend itself to the natural scientists who happen across it.

But Objectivist epistemology has been in trouble virtually since its inception. Ayn Rand never came close to finishing it; she admittedly failed to produce a philosophy of science, so by the stated policy Objectivism will never get to have one.

OPAR preceded The Logical Leap by nearly two decades, and neither the sketch of the epistemology in that book, nor Peikoff's manner of presenting it, is liable to appeal to working scientists. It's only that they will be somewhat more likely to suppose that Harriman's book is directed to their concerns, therefore somewhat more likely to be put off by it.

Robert Campbell

[Mark]

According to an article reprinted on noblesoul.com, Ayn Rand was a guest on Johnny Carson’s The Tonight Show for the first time – obviously the time videotaped here – on August 11, 1967. (The other dates are 10-26-1967 and 12-13-1967.)

I emailed Kerry about the date, also suggested he switch from Quicktime format (.mov) to .mp4 -- easier to watch for more people.

The first part is old hat but the second got interesting about four minutes in, when they talk about conscription – and by extension other violations of rights – and war.

Johnny Carson did a good job, a little provocative yet always respectful. I never watched that show, now I see why people liked it.

All, I think, available source material on the McCaskey-Peikoff affair can be found here.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

That's some cool stuff about Rand and NBI. I had never heard of Kerry O'Quinn before, but he sounds like really good people.

That fashion show attached to The Romantic Screen intro the was something, given that we are endowed with 20-20 hindsight.

And Barbara looked lovely.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

According to an article reprinted on noblesoul.com, Ayn Rand was a guest on Johnny Carson’s The Tonight Show for the first time – obviously the time videotaped here – on August 11, 1967. (The other dates are 10-26-1967 and 12-13-1967.)

I emailed Kerry about the date, also suggested he switch from Quicktime format (.mov) to .mp4 -- easier to watch for more people.

The first part is old hat but the second got interesting about four minutes in, when they talk about conscription – and by extension other violations of rights – and war.

Johnny Carson did a good job, a little provocative yet always respectful. I never watched that show, now I see why people liked it.

All, I think, available source material on the McCaskey-Peikoff affair can be found here.

I have now seen two of the three Ayn Rand appearances on The Tonight Show in 1967. I was still in Vietnam when this was broadcast. I saw the other when I got back to Tucson. In 1967 Carson was still doing his show out of NYC. These broadcasts were in color. Studying film-making in 1974, I went to a fellow student's NYC apartment with a bunch of us. Her non-present roommate had been Carson's personal secretary before he decamped to Burbank. Carson lived in some UN apartment house right next to--natch--the UN. I believe Alan Greenspan did too. Carson once complained about the window washers disturbing his sleep. Might be one reason he got out of Dodge.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Kerry must have done the intro shots for the Romantic Screen and probably did the fashion show footage as well. Quite a guy.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Johnny Carson did a good job, a little provocative yet always respectful. I never watched that show, now I see why people liked it.

I watched the first Tonight Show with Johnny Carson and the last one and many in between. I even watched a lot of Who Do You Trust with him and his sidekick in the late 1950s. His show was life-giving and it was all from him. No competitor could touch him.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

I have now seen two of the three Ayn Rand appearances on The Tonight Show in 1967. I was still in Vietnam when this was broadcast. I saw the other when I got back to Tucson. [....] Studying film-making in 1974, I went to a fellow student's NYC apartment with a bunch of us. [....]

--Brant

Brant,

Would you list your chronology? What years were you where? I get confused trying to keep track. I was wondering after I'd said that you and L and I might have been in the same small room, Kerry O'Quinn's film room, on one or more occasions that I wasn't sure if you were still in NYC when L and I attended some of the movies.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I arrived in NYC in the spring of 1968.

I returned from Vietnam in early September 1967.

This appearance by Rand had to have been the first for Carson wouldn't have been surprised and cancelled his other guests.

I don't know if I watched the second show in Tucson or the last. The one I saw had Barbara Branden sitting in the front row and Ayn followed another guest, some painter who, I think, had painted the daughter of LBJ and her groom, but I may be wrong about the subject material.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

I arrived in NYC in the spring of 1968.

And how long were you in NYC?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Thread drift leads to weird things. Kerry O'Quinn. Plus NB's and AB's change of views on homosexuality.

I noticed on another thread -- post #2 on the "Fig Leaves" thread -- I didn't want to interject this there because it's sad -- that Stephen mentioned a drawing of Joan's called "The Possessor." Reproductions of the drawing were sold by NBI. I was trying earlier to remember the name of the drawing. The model was the one who committed suicide because of despair over not being able to "cure" his homosexuality. (I'm just about sure his first name was Gordon, but I can't recall his last name.)

[Allan] believed back when that he could cure homosexulaity. There was a tragic occurrence when one of Joan's models, Gordon, I forget his last name, a homosexual who wasn't succeeding at being "cured," committed suicide.

---

On topic, thanks, Mark, for that link in post #56 compiling material re McCaskey-Peikoff.

Ellen

[9thdoctor]

(I'm just about sure his first name was Gordon, but I can't recall his last name.)

Kilbourn? See the NBI fashion show, he comes on and does a twirl at 1:40.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=5452&st=20#entry166260

[Brant Gaede]

I arrived in NYC in the spring of 1968.

And how long were you in NYC?

Ellen

Actually 35 miles away in New Jersey (Park Ridge).

27 years, continuously. I had previously spent my last two high school years there.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

(I'm just about sure his first name was Gordon, but I can't recall his last name.)

Kilbourn? See the NBI fashion show, he comes on and does a twirl at 1:40.

I think that's him. The image is so blurry, I can hardly make out his face. I never met him in person, only have an idea of what he looked like from the drawing.

Frank is so elegant. His grace of motion.

Joan's really striking, unusual beauty doesn't show. She'd been in an accident and had a lot of reconstructive surgery with the result that her smile slightly tilted on one side, giving a Mona Lisa enigmaticness. I liked better when she grew her hair longer and wore it pulled back into a bun, thus displaying the contours of her classic bone structure.

Allan hadn't started to wear a hair assist yet. First time I've seen an image of him, except for a photo in Passion, from before. Amusing.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I think Henry Holzer wore a rug in the early 70s at least. I once met an actor who did and he popped it on and off and it seemed like two different people. I never was tempted by the idea of a hairpiece. That can be valuable for a bit actor, but Burt Reynolds never got the message to leave it alone and just go with the flow like Sean Connery did and went from sort of a star and decent actor to a bankrupt joke. When I realized only I cared about my hair, I stopped caring. (I simply painted my bathroom mirror so when I look at myself I only see the eyes on down.)

--Brant

joke, folks--that was a joke!

that George Kilbourne was a blond so I guess it was Kerry's guy--couldn't have been related to James Kilbourne, I'd think, for if I remember Barbara Branden met him in Europe many years later by happenstance and the name doesn't strike me as particularly rare

[Ellen Stuttle]

that George Kilbourne was a blond so I guess it was Kerry's guy--couldn't have been related to James Kilbourne, I'd think, for if I remember Barbara Branden met him in Europe many years later by happenstance and the name doesn't strike me as particularly rare

Gordon Kilbourn (no final "e"), not George Kilbourne. If the name is spelled right on the youtube, it's different spelling from James Kilbourne's name.

Ellen

PS: A couple people, a few years ago, sent me some pictures of Allan at a Van Cliburn competition. I don't know what I've done with those, damnit. They were clear, front-face pictures which showed the wonderful smile I was pleased to see he still has.

[Robert Campbell]

I imagine the fashion show was just spliced on, I don't know, it just got pretty weird there.

It's a brief window into the NBI world.

Also plenty weird given what we know today.

Does anyone know the exact date of the event?

I hear "Lara's Theme" being played by a pianist, so 1966 seems likely.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

I came in contact with Leisha once, January or February 1976--and went nuts for her. I didn't know her name. Found out years later. Unlike her sister, she didn't do anything for Nathaniel according to Nathaniel's memoir. He hurt me to write that; it seemed so unnecessary. There was a lot of unnecessary there, but I didn't realize it at the time because I was so focused on other stuff he wrote about and the strong narrative drive.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Does anyone know the exact date of the event [the fashion show]?

I hear "Lara's Theme" being played by a pianist, so 1966 seems likely.

Robert Campbell

So far I don't find an announcement of it in either 1966 or 1967. I'll look more carefully later -- have to go off to pay real estate taxes < frown >.

I found a whole bunch else of interest in the announcements.

The first "Romantic Screen" series started March 17, 1967, and was held at the Sheraton-Atlantic. The series was popular, and there were at least two further series.

A series of seven "Social Evenings" is announced starting February 1968. The first advance announcement is in the Calendar for November 1967. It describes the NBI Empire State Building offices as "new."

Does anyone know if the fashion show was held at the Empire State Building offices?

--

Among the announcements was this from November 1966:

As stated in the official notice below, the circulation of THE OBJECTIVIST has now reached 21,056 copies.

-B.B.

Ellen

[Reidy]

BB's biography has some information about the fashion show; I don't know if that includes the date.

[Robert Campbell]

Peter,

As you noted, Barbara Branden mentions the fashion show:

The new auditorium made possible opportunities that did not exist before, and NBI began showing a series of movies, "The Romantic Screen," with films such as Dark Victory, The Brothers Karamazov, Quo Vadis, and Shane. Many of the students were accomplished in theater, dance, and music, and they began sharing their talents in performances at the auditorium; one evening, a fashion show was held in which, to the delight of the audience, Frank at his most dashing walked down the aisle in an elegant dinner suit. (The Passion of Ayn Rand, p. 326).

From the announcement that Ellen Stuttle quoted, I gather that the film series actually started before the acquisition of the new auditorium. So the fashion show may also have taken place at the Sheraton-Atlantic or some other such venue, but in any case the date appears to have been 1967.

Somewhere or other, I read years ago about Patrecia Scott modeling the wedding dress, but that detail isn't in The Passion of Ayn Rand. Nor in Judgment Day, so far as I can tell (grrr—no index!).

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Speaking of Judgment Day, Robert, R.A. Bradford's review in Liberty was obviously off a reviewer's copy for significant quoted material was excised from the first printing. This material was embarrassing to the author. I wonder if he was warned about the review. I wonder if there had been an index that suddenly needed major revision. I wrote Nathaniel I was glad there was no index for nobody should read his memoir (bits and pieces) through an index.

--Brant