"Anthemgate" Tracinski weighs in on McCaskey


kiaer.ts

Recommended Posts

Betsy Speicher disagrees with Tracinski, and isn't going to allow discussion of this on her site. I suppose that's her prerogative. She doesn't give her reasons for disagreement, but promises to do so later. Stay tuned, I expect it to be a good one. I thought Betsy and Comrade Sonia fell out over criticisms of Peikoff being allowed on Betsy's site. A change of policy?

http://forums.4aynra...=0

Is Speicher's Forum now only available for reading by members?

Upon clicking the above link, any of the links to Forum pieces from Tracinski's article, or simply http://forums.4aynrandfans.com, I get a page saying one has to log in to see posts.

Ellen

I got this:

12 guests, 0 members, 0 anonymous members and

I was able to read current articles.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is a contradiction in the ARI in that the idea of getting your professional worth by associating with a name whose reputation is not your reputation would somehow bolster your own. Quite the contrary. If you have something valuable to sell you don't need the insulting subsidy. People there are going to figure that out. Peikoff has given them no choice and no out except to get out.

--Brant

Here’s something I’ve witnessed: Adjunct professors get a pretty raw deal, it can be a hand to mouth existence. So if you can get on the ARI speakers bureau and earn honoraria, which in the early nineties was $500-$1,000 for a day’s work (or really two days, counting travel), and that being with all expenses paid, it’s a strong motivator to look the other way over the authoritarian crap coming from the organization. I’m not going to name names, but I know there’s conscious hypocrisy and line-toeing going on, how pervasive I can't say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

I believe you're on to something. A decent speaker's honorarium (with travel expenses covered) is going to be highly attractive to a poorly paid adjunct in academia.

A few years ago, when Chris Sciabarra mildly suggested that one reason for staying with ARI is real or perceived financial dependence on the organization, he was of course howled and hooted down.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you're on to something. A decent speaker's honorarium (with travel expenses covered) is going to be highly attractive to a poorly paid adjunct in academia.

You can count this as anecdotal evidence that it’s a factor. I got to be friendly enough with the person in question to know that he/she was depending on income from ARI. It wasn’t just the difference between sleeping on a straw mattress vs. a feather bed, it was more like a hand to mouth situation.

In one on one conversation we discussed and I had verboten material recommended to me. In public though, discussion of Brandens or Kelley was instantly nipped in the bud. I’d say there was integrity of a kind in that.

BTW I generally had to raise the money for the honorarium, the flyers, and pick up the tab for the meals. ARI paid for the flights and hotel rooms. ARI also provided literature, good stuff too. I could call up and get 50-100 copies of “Man’s Rights and The Nature of Government”, the Playboy interview, lots of other pamphlets to give out, shipped to me free. There was a video tape lending library too. I assume TAS does none of the above, maybe if they can woo away McCaskey’s support…I mean they got Ed Snider, right?

A few years ago, when Chris Sciabarra mildly suggested that one reason for staying with ARI is real or perceived financial dependence on the organization, he was of course howled and hooted down.

I'm interested to see that, if you have a link handy. Who do these hooters and howlers think they're kidding?

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

It was one of the subsidiary charges raised in the Dialectical Dishonesty slimefest, though I recall that it came up even before that.

It should be in Diana Hsieh's contributions to the slimefest.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am eager to hear responses to Barbara's query/comment.

I do not see this as a suicide, but merely a more-audible-than-usual death rattle from a movement that has been in an obscure nursing home for quite some time now. What a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. You want serious, you get it. I remarked on another forum that this may not be as big a deal as Trancinski and some others think. It will affect two groups of people:

- Professional academics who respect ARI (or did up until now) but aren't totally in its spell;

- Big donors who keep an eye on where their money is going.

Maybe this will cost them donations. I can't say. Most of ARI's public is small donors and newcomers to Objectivism. If they even hear about this, they won't care. ARI is good at marketing, and Brook is a good public voice. They'll continue to do what they do right.

(Ever notice that this keeps happening to progressively more obscure people? McCaskey is the first publicly anathemized person I had truly never heard of.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. You want serious, you get it. I remarked on another forum that this may not be as big a deal as Trancinski and some others think. It will affect two groups of people:

- Professional academics who respect ARI (or did up until now) but aren't totally in its spell;

- Big donors who keep an eye on where their money is going.

Maybe this will cost them donations. I can't say. Most of ARI's public is small donors and newcomers to Objectivism. If they even hear about this, they won't care. ARI is good at marketing, and Brook is a good public voice. They'll continue to do what they do right.

(Ever notice that this keeps happening to progressively more obscure people? McCaskey is the first publicly anathemized person I had truly never heard of.)

I think you have an implicit assumption that Peikoff's letter is going to disappear instead of living on forever with its instructions to the peons.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

I believe you're on to something. A decent speaker's honorarium (with travel expenses covered) is going to be highly attractive to a poorly paid adjunct in academia.

I'd say he's definitely on to something. Not long ago I was talking to an ARI supporter regarding why ARI doesn't take more concern for the truth. He literally suggested this as the explanation.

But he went even further. For example, when I made reference to Tore Boeckmann's authoritarian rant telling all of the underclass to shut up and not question authority, I was told by this ARI supporter that it makes perfect sense, because if the anointed authorities are questioned, then revenues are lowered and people go hungry. And he supported this as proper behavior.

However, this pragmatic unconcern with certain truths is an explosive thing to add to Objectivism, and Rand's comment about Objectivism being its own avenger rings true here. Most the youth are driven to ARI from Ayn Rand's rational individualism, from her values, and when they discover that those values aren't really held by ARI, that is inviting trouble. Further, it says something about people who show up and then stay for extended periods. It also says something about those who don't.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter R,

From your not having heard of John McCaskey, it doesn't follow that he wasn't important. ARIan propaganda has made a big deal of the Anthem Foundation for some years now.

But more widely, ARI is in a succession crisis:

— Leonard Peikoff is farther and farther out of the loop, but still insists on maintaining control

— Some of his recent proclamations are seen by his own followers as demented or nutty

— He has said he won't pass his pontifical (er, 'intellectual heir') title down to anyone else

— Even if another 'intellectual heir' were to be anointed, His or Her Heirness would not be receiving Peikoff's control of the Estate of Ayn Rand and the revenues appurtenant thereto, and so could not exercise the same concentrated power

The McCaskey-Peikoff schism is just one development out of several. The Peikovian fatwa to vote Democratic in the 2006 elections was just as important; so was his recent rant about Cordoba House (and Tracinski sees the connections there). The ill effects of Peikoff's sponsorship of Valliant's book and his mandated rewrites of Rand have taken longer to develop, but have started coming back to bite.

Robert C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was one of the subsidiary charges raised in the Dialectical Dishonesty slimefest, though I recall that it came up even before that.

It should be in Diana Hsieh's contributions to the slimefest.

Ick, I’ve waded through that sewer before, maybe some other time. BTW I’ve done tax work for full time adjuncts before, so I know first hand that it’s virtually slave labor. If there were viable alternatives to slake the thirst for Objectivist campus speakers, Peikoff would find himself ever more ronery.

BTW I just listened to his latest podcast, dated 10/4/10, and it’s got some good howlers in it. Now maybe it’s just that I’m at the bottom of beer number 2, so maybe I shouldn't ruin them. Alright no, here’s a bit: 1st question is about loneliness, and a part of his answer is to suggest having a pet. He points out that you can have “sensuality in common” with a pet. On to the second question, he talks about how he handled a loud neighbor’s dog. The line “I went on the internet, and found a gun…” kept me interested. Moving on, we get his views on profanity in sex, obviously good for a laugh. Finally, did Ayn Rand talk to her cats? You’ll have to listen to find out. And there was another question or two.

http://www.peikoff.com/podcasts/

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW I just listened to his latest podcast, dated 10/4/10, and it’s got some good howlers in it. Now maybe it’s just that I’m at the bottom of beer number 2, so maybe I shouldn't ruin them. Alright no, here’s a bit: 1st question is about loneliness, and a part of his answer is to suggest having a pet. He points out that you can have “sensuality in common” with a pet. On to the second question, he talks about how he handled a loud neighbor’s dog. The line “I went on the internet, and found a gun…” kept me interested. Moving on, we get his views on profanity in sex, obviously good for a laugh. Finally, did Ayn Rand talk to her cats? You’ll have to listen to find out. And there was another question or two.

Yup. Another question -- one that seems to relate to his 'casting out' McCaskey:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Another question -- one that seems to relate to his 'casting out' McCaskey:

Damn, that was quick. Yes, that question and his answer did seem odd, coming now. BTW, next time you may try the image of another Pope:

200px-Pope_Hilarius.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Hilarius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He would likely reply that in the case of a disagreement, there is no duty for him to sanction or provide a forum for his opponent. Peikoff probably also does hold that Harriman McCaskey has somehow rejected Objectivist epistemology. But rather than prove it he made threats and pulled rank, the privilege of which he feels he has earned, given his "status."

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

I assume you mean that Peikoff thinks McCaskey has somehow rejected Objectivist epistemology.

Robert Campbell

PS. The short answer on disagreements among Objectivists sounds like a classic hypocritical concession. Peikoff doesn't really mean one word of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

I assume you mean that Peikoff thinks McCaskey has somehow rejected Objectivist epistemology.

Robert Campbell

PS. The short answer on disagreements among Objectivists sounds like a classic hypocritical concession. Peikoff doesn't really mean one word of it.

I am not sure whether he doesn't mean it, or he thinks that he is the exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

I assume you mean that Peikoff thinks McCaskey has somehow rejected Objectivist epistemology.

Robert Campbell

PS. The short answer on disagreements among Objectivists sounds like a classic hypocritical concession. Peikoff doesn't really mean one word of it.

I am not sure whether he doesn't mean it, or he thinks that he is the exception.

I think each of the splits has a different flavor. McCaskey was forced off the ARI board and Anthem Foundation, but is still participating in Objectivist events. I'm not sure if Peikoff considers this a casting out.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure whether he doesn't mean it, or he thinks that he is the exception.

Some people have suggested that he's senile, so maybe he doesn't remember what he said/wrote last month.

I just took a quick trip in the TARDIS back to the 1300's, and put the case before William of Ockham. His conclusion was that it's hypocrisy. <_<

P.S. The Schick Quattro Titanium is, in fact, his favorite razor. He's always having me bring him replacement cartridges.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure whether he doesn't mean it, or he thinks that he is the exception.

Some people have suggested that he's senile, so maybe he doesn't remember what he said/wrote last month.

I just took a quick trip in the TARDIS back to the 1300's, and put the case before William of Ockham. His conclusion was that it's hypocrisy. <_<

P.S. The Schick Quattro Titanium is, in fact, his favorite razor. He's always having me bring him replacement cartridges.

As we grow older, we become more firmly and openly the person we really are. Leonard Peikoff is not senile. He is merely Leonard Peikoff.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure whether he doesn't mean it, or he thinks that he is the exception.

Some people have suggested that he's senile, so maybe he doesn't remember what he said/wrote last month.

I just took a quick trip in the TARDIS back to the 1300's, and put the case before William of Ockham. His conclusion was that it's hypocrisy. <_<

P.S. The Schick Quattro Titanium is, in fact, his favorite razor. He's always having me bring him replacement cartridges.

You're supplying Schick Quattro's to William of Ockham? His logic just keeps getting cleaner and closer...

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure whether he doesn't mean it, or he thinks that he is the exception.

Some people have suggested that he's senile, so maybe he doesn't remember what he said/wrote last month.

I just took a quick trip in the TARDIS back to the 1300's, and put the case before William of Ockham. His conclusion was that it's hypocrisy. <_<

P.S. The Schick Quattro Titanium is, in fact, his favorite razor. He's always having me bring him replacement cartridges.

As we grow older, we become more firmly and openly the person we really are. Leonard Peikoff is not senile. He is merely Leonard Peikoff.

Barbara

I don't have the advantage (?) of having known Peikoff before he was Rand's heir. My impression is that the inheritance corrupted a man who might otherwise have made a very adequate mediocre academic. By becoming Rand's heir, he first lost any market mechanism connecting his level of comfort with the value and volume of his academic output. Second, he became the undeserving beneficiary of adulation such as

, which was his not due to the actual value of his own accomplishments, but due to the position given him by Rand.

I think of the happily married and quite competent Roman general Tiberius who was corrupted by the fruits of his mother's ambition, of Caligula, a flawed heir driven mad by the removal from him of all conventional restraints, of Nero, who fancied himself a man of all talents, since there was none to tell him the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of many misinterpretations and miscommunications regarding his role in the recent resignation of John McCaskey from the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, which Leonard Peikoff founded, Dr. Peikoff recently agreed to an interview to help clear the air. This is his first public interview on the subject.

AN INTERVIEW WITH LEONARD PEIKOFF ON M, DH AND LP

Q. Thank you for being with us.

A. You're rationally welcome. Thank you for having me.

Q. Er, you're rationally welcome too. Now, with regard to John McCaskey--

A. Yes. Yes. Now, may I just make a preliminary statement?

Q. Oh, of course. By all means.

A. I do not want to argue what I regard as facts. I do not want to grapple with or hassle about plain facts qua plain facts. I just want to announce them, point to them, take them as given for all to acknowledge who will acknowledge. Let them acknowledge these facts or be damned.

Q. Okay.

A. A is A. Entities exist. There are stars, planets, atmosphere, vegetation, the animal kingdom and human beings.

Q. Okay. Let's take that as our context.

A. Let me be the one to establish the context here. I have been already laying out the context in my role of the person being interviewed. I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism.

Q. Oh of course, I didn't mean to--

A. There are people and things. And they all have a NATURE. They are what they ARE. Do you follow me so far? Bar? Car? Jar? Star? Tar?

Q. Yes.

A. I founded the Ayn Rand Institute. I withdrew from daily operations after a while because I'm not really an administrator by nature or choice, but I founded it. I'm the big boss, the big wig, the progenitor, the creator, whatever you want to call it. That is essential to the context I want to establish at the outset, so that your readers can understand what is at stake here. I am Ayn Rand's heir and I was stepped over. I was stepped over. It wasn't the way I wanted it. I'm smart. I can handle things.

Q. Okay.

A. Do you have a question for me or not?

Q. Okay, so you, um, you founded the Institute, right?

A. Right.

Q. So then what happened, Dr. Peikoff?

A. Purpose of which is to spread the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which I know better than anybody else by Miss Rand's own statement. You've read my books, I hope. You do know who I am?

Q. Of course. You are the most wonderfulest expositor of Objectivism in the whole wide world.

A. Aw, shucks. I don't know about that. But at least I'm not as dumb as all the others and at least I am loyal to the grandeur that was and is Ayn Rand and her vision. But let me finish setting the context here, because I don't want any of your readers to have any excuse to pretend to be still confused over the issue. Once I have finished speaking, that should be the end of it, once and for all, for ever and ever. End of all the confusion and end of all the kind of mealy-mouthed babbling by the rampant subjectivist-intrinsicist-pseudo-Objectivist axis. End of pseudo-"honest" debate over whether people can "honestly debate" an invulnerable intellectual edifice that has now been definitively set forth, without blemish, without regret. On the only basis there ever was or could be for any valid induction: THE FACTS OF REALITY.

Q. Once and for all?

A. Right.

Q. Okay. Go ahead, Dr. Peikoff.

A. I may proceed?

Q. Please proceed.

A. Let me lay it out for you. This person whom I will call "M," which stands for "John McCaskey," was on the board of ARI, the Ayn Rand Institute, and he was involved in some kind of private sessions, discussion sessions, talking about the book that "DH," Dave Harriman, wrote under my guidance and sponsorship, the book TLL: IIP, a.k.a., also known as, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. This book gives the DAAIFAOP, Definitive Answer About Induction From An Objectivist Perspective.

Q. Criticized the book. This M character did?

A. What are you, Yoda? Yes. Criticized it. In these private sessions convened to talk about the book.

Q. What an asshole! Doesn't he know who you are, your intellectual status in Objectivism? I gather this criticism didn't involve mere typographical corrections or something of that sort?

A. I have seen a large part of this criticism myself, and have heard its overall tenor and content from others who attended a forum on the subject. I do not know where else he has voiced these conclusions, but size to me is irrelevant in this context. I don't have any kind of fetish about size. His disagreements are not limited to details, but go to the heart of the philosophic principles at issue. And now that he's been booted out of the Institute in direct moral consequence of his own action, he's slathering the Amazon.com comments section with this swill. Which confirms everything I've been saying, how he's criticized the book, it's not just my fantasy, it's right there in the reader reviews at Amazon. Public criticisms of the book.

Q. And what are the philosophical principles that his criticism goes to the heart of? What were M's mistakes in criticizing the book? How specifically does he manifest his bad faith and intellectual dishonesty?

A. Your shoelace is untied.

Q. Huh? Uh...

A. Look, a bird!

Q. Huh? Uh...

A. In essence, at the core, what the thing is in itself, beneath all the grubby journalistic details, his behavior amounts to: LP (that's me, Leonard Peikoff) is misguided, DH 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. I hope you understand how arch-evil and malevolent this kind of behavior amounts to. Maybe it's not QUITE as bad as going around axe-murdering and child-molesting, but it's close.

Q. What kind of criticisms did M make of TLL: IIP, and how would you respond to them?

A. Your other shoelace is untied!

Q. Uh...

A. Let me just wrap this up and then there will be no excuse for "confusion." When a great book sponsored by the Institute and championed by me--I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism--is denounced by a member of the board of the Institute, which I founded, someone has to go. So that's what I told that lady from ARI who left two messages on my answering machine, one was enough, didn't she know who I am, but okay, she left two, it's okay, I wasn't home, it gave me a chance to write a memo for the record explaining that someone had to go, someone would go. Granted, M brought in contributions, arranged college appointments, whatever, great, but Objectivism is not pragmatism. We are talking about a scumbag who tendered criticisms of DH's book, a book that I sponsored and that applies my ideas, during sessions convened to discuss it. Criticisms! Blatant criticisms. During sessions! Now, endorsements, yes, I could have understood. "Hallelujah!" "Glory be!" "Objective of the Objective!" and whatnot, fine, I could have accepted that kind of response. But criticisms? It's based on my own theory of induction! My own fucking theory. That book is collaborative. I hope you understand who I am, my intellectual status in Objectivism.

Q. Uh...okay. Anything you want to add to or, um, subtract from what you have said?

A. Subtract?

Q. Let me withdraw that verb. I momentarily slipped into a state of malevolent non-objectivity. Anything to add?

A. No. I hope now that I have elaborated the deadly nature of the venom of this guy, and his denunciation of a great book, offering criticisms and whatnot, totally out of bounds.

Q. Alrighty then.

* * *

Edited by Starbuckle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As we grow older, we become more firmly and openly the person we really are. Leonard Peikoff is not senile. He is merely Leonard Peikoff.

Barbara"

Between BB's lovely, economical wittiness, and Starbuckle's thing--oh, my! If nothing else good happens all day, I will still have thoroughly enjoyed myself.

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