What a Dipshit


Jonathan

Recommended Posts

Valliant on SOLOP, quoting me and then commenting, while somehow failing to grasp who I was talking about:

”Why is [Valliant] assuming that others' disagreements or criticisms of [Ayn Rand] are efforts to prove that his hero has feet of clay? It sounds to me as if he's very emotionally invested in smearing anyone who dares to question some of the actions of his hero, or to point out the shoddiness of some of her defenders.

“I think a more important question is why does Jim get so upset that others simply recognize that Rand had faults? Why is he so disturbed by the fact that some of Rand's fans openly talk about her mistakes, instead of having to be backed into a corner and act like reality-denying fools until finally admitting that Rand was sometimes irrational, self-contradictory, harshly judgmental or dishonest?” -- "Jonathan"

Who told this fair-minded chap, Jonathan, that he could call me "Jim"?

(That's for my friends, or at least someone who knows me, "Jon-Jon.")

No one told me that I could call Valliant "Jim," and I didn't. I was obviously calling James Heaps-Nelson "Jim."

Here's the post of mine in question. How in the ever living fuck did Valliant manage to get it twisted around in his head that I was talking about him?

Here's more from Valliant's comments about what I said:

Is that what I said or even implied -- that all criticism of Rand is an effort to "find feet of clay," and not just certain critics -- and certain specific criticisms? Naming the actual criticisms and the responses involved seems to be forbidden at OL.

Hopefully Valliant now understands that the "Jim" I was referring to was James Heaps-Nelson, and that my comments had nothing to do with anything that Valliant may or may not have said or implied. What are the odds that he'll still not get it straight after reading this post?

More Valliant:

And readers can see the "corner-backing" around here and who's been involved.

Speaking of readers and what they can or can't see, I wouldn't have thought that any readers would have had a problem recognizing that I was talking about James "Jim" Heaps-Nelson in my posts, and not James Valliant.

Valliant quoting me again and commenting:

”I think we all know that Rand had integrity. Some of us have enough honesty and integrity to freely admit that she was sometimes irrational, self-contradictory, harshly judgmental and dishonest.” -- "Jonathan"

Again, don't hold your breath for any specific contradictions or the like, of course.

Hey, no need to hold your breath. An example of Rand's dishonesty? Okay. I agreed with Diana Hsieh when she wrote,

But Rand was obligated to tell the truth about the reason for her break with Branden, which she did not. If she wished to keep the affair private, as would have been reasonable, she could have cited irreconcilable personal differences and even the Brandens' dishonesty. Instead, she fabricated all sorts of false justifications in 'To Whom It May Concern' -- and failed to mention the real reason for the break.

In Basic Principles of Objectivism, Nathaniel Branden argues that honesty requires that we take responsibility for the reasonable inferences of others. Misleading technical truths are not honest. Even if every word that Rand wrote about the Branden's in "To Whom It May Concern" were true, the letter would still fail that test miserably.

Ayn Rand's dishonesty in the aftermath of her break with Nathaniel Branden is certainly disappointing to me, but hardly devastating. I admire Rand as a novelist and a philosopher, but her personal conduct is ultimately irrelevant to me.

And here's a simple example of Rand being irrational and self-contradictory:

She defined art as a recreation of reality and said that it cannot serve a utilitarian purpose, yet she categorized architecture as art, despite stating that it served a utilitarian purpose and despite claiming that it does not recreate reality.

As for "harshly judgmental," I'll refer readers to her many comments on the moral and psychological status of a variety of thinkers and artists and their works. Her comments on Dali, Vermeer, Degas, Beethoven and Parrish come to mind off the top of my head. I'd have to get back to you with her exact words. Other than that, there are a wide variety of comments that she made on many different issues ranging from the handicapped, as we've been discussing here on OL recently, to homosexuals ("immoral and disgusting,") etc., that I would think would easily qualify as being "harshly judgmental."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any bets on how long before Diana destroys the link in "Jon-Jon"'s post? I'd say tomorrow morning it's gone! Diana is always trying to erase her odious past. Quote her and she erases the material!

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Dear!

Diana says this -

But Rand was obligated to tell the truth about the reason for her break with Branden, which she did not. If she wished to keep the affair private, as would have been reasonable, she could have cited irreconcilable personal differences and even the Brandens' dishonesty. Instead, she fabricated all sorts of false justifications in "To Whom It May Concern" -- and failed to mention the real reason for the break.

In Basic Principles of Objectivism, Nathaniel Branden argues that honesty requires that we take responsibility for the reasonable inferences of others. Misleading technical truths are not honest. Even if every word that Rand wrote about the Branden's in "To Whom It May Concern" were true, the letter would still fail that test miserably.

That is clearly double plus ungood. I always thought that Roidian crimestop and the ready availability of the memory holes would oblige Diana to unfeel those sentiments before being allowed into the Party.

Have I misjudged them? Will they actually accept this heresy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More heresies can be found here

Somewhere on the interwebs I read an exchange between Hsieh and other prominent Roids about Oism's cultishness. She took a very TOC-ish "ARI is a cult" approach. That would have been around '02 or '03.

Did she basically just give up her integrity for a better job or what? From what I recall most of her complaints were that the TOC simply wasn't doing anything, not anything about its philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More heresies can be found here

Wow. What she said then was on-target.

Re the "intellectual heir" designation, she wrote:

If my memory serves me, Rand did publicly designate Branden as her intellectual heir -- but she never did so with Peikoff. That's a title that he chose to assume himself after her death. (It's one of those "If I repeat it often enough maybe it will be true" sort of things, I think -- and many people seem to have bought it.)

In any case, even if Rand had designated Peikoff as her "intellectual heir," I think she would have taken it all back upon reading OPAR!

Diana's memory served her right about Rand's public designation of Branden as her intellectual heir. The first time Rand called him that in print was in the remarks titled "About the Author" which followed the text of Atlas Shrugged.

from the original

Atlas Shrugged

"About the Author"

"My other acknowledgment [in addition to her "philosophical debt" to Aristotle] is on the dedication page of this novel. I knew what values of character I wanted to find in a man. I met such a man--and we have been married for twenty-eight years. His name is Frank O'Connor. When I wrote The Fountainhead, I was addressing myself to an ideal reader--to as rational and independent a mind as I could conceive of. I found such a reader--through a fan letter he wrote me about The Fountainhead when he was nineteen years old. He is my intellectual heir. His name is Nathaniel Branden."

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original

Atlas Shrugged

About the Author

My other acknowledgment [in addition to her "philosophical debt" to Aristotle] is on the dedication page of this novel. I knew what values of character I wanted to find in a man. I met such a man--and we have been married for twenty-eight years. His name is Frank O'Connor. When I wrote The Fountainhead, I was addressing myself to an ideal reader--to as rational and independent a mind as I could conceive of. I found such a reader--through a fan letter he wrote me about The Fountainhead when he was nineteen years old. He is my intellectual heir. His name is Nathaniel Branden.

I wonder how this made Frank feel. Interestingly, I don't think there are any references to Frank in the journals reprinted in PARC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did she basically just give up her integrity for a better job or what? From what I recall most of her complaints were that the TOC simply wasn't doing anything, not anything about its philosophy.

Joel,

As a former friend of Ms. Hsieh's, I offer the following opinion:

1) She underwent some kind of crisis of faith

2) She sensed employment opportunities through the Leonard Peikoff Institute that TAS would never offer her (I think she is angling for a job with the Objectivist Academic Center)

I don't consider opportunism a sufficient explanation for Ms. Hsieh's conversion to the ARIan way, but her philosophical views have changed a good deal less than she pretends, and she has a very sharp eye tactically.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did she basically just give up her integrity for a better job or what? From what I recall most of her complaints were that the TOC simply wasn't doing anything, not anything about its philosophy.

Joel,

As a former friend of Ms. Hsieh's, I offer the following opinion:

1) She underwent some kind of crisis of faith

2) She sensed employment opportunities through the Leonard Peikoff Institute that TAS would never offer her (I think she is angling for a job with the Objectivist Academic Center)

I don't consider opportunism a sufficient explanation for Ms. Hsieh's conversion to the ARIan way, but her philosophical views have changed a good deal less than she pretends, and she has a very sharp eye tactically.

Robert Campbell

The reasons she originally came up with, especially regarding Nathaniel Branden--one article or talk of his--were thin if not specious. Even more so in the case of Barbara. I don't think she's going places with the formal ARI crowd; they're much too sophisticated and she wrote too much that cannot stop grating on them regardless of her "conversion."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how this [dual dedication of Atlas] made Frank feel. Interestingly, I don't think there are any references to Frank in the journals reprinted in PARC.

As Robert said, there aren't. The first I heard of PARC was from Chris Sciabarra, who had read it. Among his comments was that he was struck by the absence of any reference to Frank in the journals. I don't find this absence as odd upon reading the journals as it sounded to me before I read them. She's thinking on paper, trying to organize her thoughts about an issue which greatly perplexes her. Everything she says is geared to seeking answers on that particular issue.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't consider opportunism a sufficient explanation for Ms. Hsieh's conversion to the ARIan way, but her philosophical views have changed a good deal less than she pretends, and she has a very sharp eye tactically.

I don't consider opportunism in the usual sense sufficient to explain the "conversion." I think that a spiritual goal is operative as well -- the goal, in pagan imagery, of being high priestess keeper of the flame, or in Christian imagery, of being head-prioress-officiant of the pure way. There are many women who find the image of dedicated service to a spiritual calling a romantically attractive image. Diana impresses me as being someone who wants the sort of singleness of dedicated purpose which "the ARIan way" provides but which the open-school approach doesn't afford.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

Head-prioress-officiant of the pure way.

A good way to put it.

One of the peculiar features of her conversion was the way she seemed to positively enjoy having one of her papers ripped apart by Brother Greg Salmieri, on account of its allegedly insufficient Objectivist purity.

Brant,

You are of course right that her denunciations of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden came across to nonbelievers as hoked up and contrived.

I'm sure many in the official ARI crowd do not like Ms. Hsieh, but they discount her at their peril. She has now published in The Objective Standard, and been publicly commended by Amy Peikoff, for her staunch support of the fatwa to vote Democratic.

I used to think her spiritual advisor and confessor, now Dr. Salmieri, might leave her to twist in the wind if that proved advantageous to him.

I now think that Dr. Salmieri is the one in greater danger of being left to twist in the wind, if that should prove tactically advantageous to Ms. Hsieh.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the original

Atlas Shrugged

"About the Author"

"My other acknowledgment [in addition to her "philosophical debt" to Aristotle] is on the dedication page of this novel. I knew what values of character I wanted to find in a man. I met such a man--and we have been married for twenty-eight years. His name is Frank O'Connor. When I wrote The Fountainhead, I was addressing myself to an ideal reader--to as rational and independent a mind as I could conceive of. I found such a reader--through a fan letter he wrote me about The Fountainhead when he was nineteen years old. He is my intellectual heir. His name is Nathaniel Branden."

Ellen

___

I seem to recall someone pointing out that on some other occasion she called him "the best of my intellectual heirs" or something like that, with the plural. Can anyone supply the details? -- Mike Hardy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

This is at the end of her interview with Mike Wallace. I will try to find the quote.

(break in time)

I'm back. Here you go. A discussion about this ensued on that thread.

MIKE WALLACE: Ayn. One last question. We only have about half a minute. How many Randists?... I beg your pardon. You don't like the word.

AYN RAND: Objectivists.

MIKE WALLACE: How many Objectivists would you say are in the United States?

AYN RAND: It's hard to estimate, but I can tell you some figures. My best intellectual heir, Nathaniel Branden, the young psychologist, is giving a series of lectures on my philosophy in New York. He has received 600 letters of inquiry within the month of January. He is giving these lectures and attendance is growing in geometrical proportion.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

This is at the end of her interview with Mike Wallace. I will try to find the quote.

(break in time)

I'm back. Here you go. A discussion about this ensued on that thread.

MIKE WALLACE: Ayn. One last question. We only have about half a minute. How many Randists?... I beg your pardon. You don't like the word.

AYN RAND: Objectivists.

MIKE WALLACE: How many Objectivists would you say are in the United States?

AYN RAND: It's hard to estimate, but I can tell you some figures. My best intellectual heir, Nathaniel Branden, the young psychologist, is giving a series of lectures on my philosophy in New York. He has received 600 letters of inquiry within the month of January. He is giving these lectures and attendance is growing in geometrical proportion.

Michael

Well, then, there it is! Isn't it obvious that AR meant to refer to the Inner Circle as being her "intellectual heirs," with NB being the "best" among them? If so, then, considering the various truckloads of praise she publicly heaped on LP after the Split in 1968, isn't it clear that LP became her ~new~ "best intellectual heir"? Not her ~sole~ intellectual heir (as Peikoff might like to claim), but the ~pre-eminent~ one, certainly?

Also, note that her comment to Mike Wallace came ~after~ her published comment in Atlas Shrugged about NB, so she obviously meant to be more inclusive about her intellectual legacy.

Can we now put this issue to rest?

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

Head-prioress-officiant of the pure way.

A good way to put it.

One of the peculiar features of her conversion was the way she seemed to positively enjoy having one of her papers ripped apart by Brother Greg Salmieri, on account of its allegedly insufficient Objectivist purity.

Brant,

You are of course right that her denunciations of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden came across to nonbelievers as hoked up and contrived.

I'm sure many in the official ARI crowd do not like Ms. Hsieh, but they discount her at their peril. She has now published in The Objective Standard, and been publicly commended by Amy Peikoff, for her staunch support of the fatwa to vote Democratic.

I used to think her spiritual advisor and confessor, now Dr. Salmieri, might leave her to twist in the wind if that proved advantageous to him.

I now think that Dr. Salmieri is the one in greater danger of being left to twist in the wind, if that should prove tactically advantageous to Ms. Hsieh.

Robert Campbell

You make her out to be a power-grabby.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

This is at the end of her interview with Mike Wallace. I will try to find the quote.

(break in time)

I'm back. Here you go. A discussion about this ensued on that thread.

MIKE WALLACE: Ayn. One last question. We only have about half a minute. How many Randists?... I beg your pardon. You don't like the word.

AYN RAND: Objectivists.

MIKE WALLACE: How many Objectivists would you say are in the United States?

AYN RAND: It's hard to estimate, but I can tell you some figures. My best intellectual heir, Nathaniel Branden, the young psychologist, is giving a series of lectures on my philosophy in New York. He has received 600 letters of inquiry within the month of January. He is giving these lectures and attendance is growing in geometrical proportion.

Michael

Well, then, there it is! Isn't it obvious that AR meant to refer to the Inner Circle as being her "intellectual heirs," with NB being the "best" among them? If so, then, considering the various truckloads of praise she publicly heaped on LP after the Split in 1968, isn't it clear that LP became her ~new~ "best intellectual heir"? Not her ~sole~ intellectual heir (as Peikoff might like to claim), but the ~pre-eminent~ one, certainly?

Also, note that her comment to Mike Wallace came ~after~ her published comment in Atlas Shrugged about NB, so she obviously meant to be more inclusive about her intellectual legacy.

Can we now put this issue to rest?

REB

No. I think you're wrong in what you think it's obvious she meant. I think she started to say one thing -- "my best student," probably -- and changed in mid-sentence. People do that, change in mid-sentence, when speaking.

Why don't you ask Barbara and/or Nathaniel if Ayn ever referred to the whole Inner Circle as being her "intellectual heirs"? They'd be the ones who'd be able to tell you if she did.

(I'll send Barbara a PM and ask if Ayn referred to any of the others by the term "intellectual heir.")

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen: "I'll send Barbara a PM and ask if Ayn referred to any of the others by the term 'intellectual heir.'"

Ellen, Rand never referred to anyone but Nathaniel as her intellectual heir. She never used the term to refer to the Collective or any of its members, and she told them that it was Nathaniel to whom she had given that title. She knew that within the Collective, there were various degrees of mastery of Objectivism; she believed that it was only Nathaniel who had mastered it completely and, as she said, was her "soulmate." Therefore, as she often explained, it was he alone whom she authorized to speak for her and in her name; it was he alone who would carry on her ideas after she was gone. And one evening, in the question period following one of Nathaniel's lectures, she told the class that he had a blank check to speak in her name, and that they could consider anything he said as coming from her. That, to her -- as well as being her soulmate -- was part of the meaning of "intellectual heir."

You are probably right in suggesting that when she spoke of Nathaniel, to Mike Wallace, as her "best intellectual heir," she had been about to say something like "my best student" and changed in mid-sentence.

After her break with Nathaniel, she told me, more than once, that she now regretted having announced that he could speak for her. She said she should not have given such a blank check to anyone, and would never do so again. One reason among others why she would never have designated Peikoff as her intellectual heir, was that she was very conscious of the spottiness of his understanding of her ideas. And I cannot imagine her ever seeing him as her soulmate; at best, and well into his forties, he was her promising young protege.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make her out to be a power-grabby.

Brant,

Sure. That's part of what's going on.

Ms. Hsieh was mightily offended when Chris Sciabarra likened her to Comrade Sonia. But the comparison was apt.

Robert Campbell

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