[Ed Hudgins]

The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar

I am writing in response to the controversy on several online discussion boards about The Atlas Society’s 2008 Summer Seminar, and the inclusion of Lindsay Perigo as a speaker on the program. I want to explain our Summer Seminar policies, to place the current controversy in context, and to address real concerns about the wisdom of that invitation.

Our Purpose

The purpose of The Atlas Society is to make Objectivism a recognized and respected perspective or view of life, culture, and politics. In the same way that Cato, Reason, and others have made “libertarianism” a political alternative distinct from liberalism and conservatism, we want to make Objectivism the positive philosophical alternative (using David Kelley’s categories) to the religious, pre-modern worldview and the value-relative, degenerate, postmodern worldview. We do this specifically by (1) calling attention to Objectivism and TAS, by (2) promoting understanding of Objectivism, and by (3) promoting a commitment both to Objectivism and to TAS.

We want to build a benevolent community of Objectivists and a benevolent culture and society based on reason and rational, responsible self-interest. Consistent with this goal, our approach to promoting Objectivism is to do so in an open, rational, and civil manner. Here’s what that approach entails.

Our Open Approach

We do not consider Objectivism to be some fragile, delicate flower-of-a-philosophy that must be protected from any questions, challenges, or engagement with other ideas. Rather, it is a robust philosophy that can withstand criticism and profit from open discussion about its implications and applications.

Thus, we use our events and other venues to explore deeper issues concerning the philosophy and its applications. Our open approach means that we wish to look at how Objectivism fits with new, cutting-edge thinking and discoveries in various disciplines. An excellent example is how Robert Campbell, Jay Friedenberg, Walter Donway, and others have addressed recent work on the brain, mind, and psychology. We believe that such insights strengthen Objectivism rather than undermine or dilute it.

“Open,” however, does not mean that we will engage in any debate over any issue—or that we do not approach issues from a settled, principled framework. We do come from an Objectivist perspective. Therefore we do not wish to squander our resources debating issues, arguments, or discussions that have already been heard and decided.

Our Civil Approach

Consistent with our open approach to discussion is civility in discussion.
A civil approach to discussion and debate entails treating others with respect, and it assumes that we have a common purpose—in our case, the understanding and promotion of Objectivism. It also assumes a community of generally well-intentioned and intellectually honest individuals. Thus, we recognize that many intellectual disagreements are honest ones and not an indication of moral failing, justifying anger and vilification.

We even recognize that critics who have fundamental disagreements with their interlocutors can be civil; I have seen Christopher Hitchens, one of the harshest critics of religion, having civil exchanges with religious right leaders at social gatherings.

Civility is not an end in and of itself out of all context; rather, it is an approach to dealing with others that facilitates goals that are in our rational self-interest.

We also believe that it is possible in particular cases for civil people to have strong personal differences yet agree about intellectual matters or acknowledge intellectual contributions; one might have personal issues with Nathaniel Branden while acknowledging his pioneering work on the psychology of self-esteem or with Leonard Peikoff while acknowledging his fine work in the taped series “Understanding Objectivism.”

I have tried to stay out of the personal infighting on the various discussion boards. And as an institution TAS has focused on the battle for ideas. This has meant that we are not neutral concerning the contributions that individuals have or might make to our institutional goals of promoting Objectivism. For example, I invited Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden to speak at our Atlas 50th event and we posted online a clip of Barbara’s moving remarks. I also have been an admirer the work of Chris Sciabarra, another target of a nasty personal smear campaign, and wish in the future there were some way for him to participate in our events.

TAS has also hosted at its public events speakers on the opposite side of these personal feuds. That’s because our aim has been to focus on the ideas that are of shared interest to all, and to stand above this infighting—even as some have tried their best to draw us into it as raging partisans.

Two Sources of Incivility

Sadly, there has been a propensity among too many Objectivists to reduce intellectual differences to the personal level and to bring the most intemperate forms of incivility to highly visible public arguments. That propensity has been evident largely from two quarters: from individuals prominently associated with the Ayn Rand Institute and also from online discussion boards, notably Lindsay Perigo’s SOLO-Passion.

Most of us know the reaction of many associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, including its co-founder Leonard Peikoff, to David Kelley’s widely discussed address to a libertarian social group in the late 1980s. That group’s libertarian outlook alone was considered by Peikoff and other ARI spokesmen to be prima facie evidence of its intellectual dishonesty or evil; and they further claimed that Kelley was immorally “sanctioning” that dishonesty simply by addressing the group—even if only to tell its members why he believed they were wrong. For that bizarre reason, Kelley was banned from further involvement with ARI.

Ten years ago, U.S. News & World Report published a major article on why Objectivists can’t seem to get along, focusing on the Peikoff-Kelley split. While Rand and Kelley came off okay in the article, the cause of Objectivism was not helped by Peikoff’s comment, “I’d rather blow up the entire Objectivist movement than deal with this slime.”

A second source of this incivility—where juvenile name-calling and vulgar insults are characteristically equated with a commitment to “passion”—has been the website SOLO-Passion. The appalling childishness so often expressed by individuals on that website makes a mockery of the term “rational.” Yes, there are also intelligent comments and rational discussions mixed in with the vitriol, which makes it all the sadder as pearls are trampled beneath the swine. Even Lindsay Perigo, the principal of that website and, sadly, a chief practitioner of and tone-setter for that approach, admits that some of those who post on his site go too far.

The widespread perception that Objectivists are fanatical ideologues who speak of reason but do not practice it, and who are instead irrational, screaming loonies, continues to be fueled by such public statements and actions, which do incredible harm to the spread of the philosophy.

Fostering Openness and Civility

To further our objectives, I have been trying in recent times to bring more reason and civility to the Objectivist movement. This is a difficult, perhaps impossible task, but a pursuit worth continuing.

For example, last year I met with Yaron Brook of ARI at a meeting of the libertarian Atlas Economic Research Foundation. At the event, BB&T chairman and ARI supporter John Allison gave an excellent talk, and Brook stayed on and attended a meeting put on by the conservative Heritage Foundation. I congratulated Brook on this new openness and I pointed out to him that it was for this very sort of thing—addressing “enemy” conservative and libertarian groups—that ARI denounced David Kelley. I insisted that it is time to abandon such practices, which have been to the detriment of Objectivism as well as ARI.

Where my initiative will go, I don’t know, but I have tried. And I do believe that among more responsible organizations, the notion of civility is starting to gain currency.

While I have not, especially of late, been a regular poster on discussion boards, I have tried to remain on civil terms both in public and private with Lindsay Perigo and, as he says, without any pretenses, he has generally remained civil as well. I hope this mutually civil approach continues.

Using the Summer Seminar to Restore Civility

At the Summer Seminar, we seek to develop our understanding and application of Objectivism in an open and civil environment. This certainly influences the talks and speakers we choose.

Thus, we would not be averse to having an ARI speaker discuss why Objectivism should be considered a “closed” rather than “open system.” That is a topic about which honest Objectivists might differ, and one that should have been discussed in such a forum, and in a civil manner, nearly twenty years ago.

However, it would be more problematic to invite someone to speak against intellectual tolerance as such, on the premise that those like Kelley—who hold opinions different from those of Peikoff—are not merely wrong but dishonest or evil. Though such a speaker no doubt would not wish to “sanction” our “evil” by attending such a forum, in any case we would not provide them a platform to denounce us and the policies of openness and civility that we champion.

In fact, we have hosted presentations at the Summer Seminar about strife within the Objectivist movement that were both civil and constructive. Two years ago, I gave a talk on what I call “mature Objectivism.” I argued that the error of mistaking insults for passion or commitment comes, in part, from an intellectual error. Objectivists understand that all actions must have an aim, and that they must be rational, moral, and efficient within a particular context. Thus, if one decides to insult someone, one must ask, “What is the point?” For the most part, Objectivists who indulge in such behavior fail to ask themselves whether their aim is rational and moral and whether the action is actually effective.

To take another example, in 2006 Barbara Branden gave a Summer Seminar talk on “Objectivist Rage.” When she proposed the topic, I was skeptical. I did not want “flame wars” from online discussion boards to spill over into the Summer Seminar. I didn’t want Barbara to bash Lindsay any more than I would want Lindsay to bash Barbara at our events. But she explained to me her proposed approach and we let her go ahead. The result was a thoughtful, reasoned, impressive, and civil approach to the topic. We posted her remarks on our website and remain grateful for her intellectual contribution to the movement.

So, if our Summer Seminar can be used to promote civility and end needless discord, I’m more than happy to use it as such. However, in light of the TAS commitment to the principles discussed above, I don’t intend to let the Summer Seminar be used to perpetuate the very incivility against which we have been fighting.

The Current Controversy

In the past Lindsay Perigo has given quality presentations at Summer Seminars that were well-received by attendees. With this in mind and hoping to promote greater harmony within the Objectivist movement, Will invited Lindsay Perigo to the Summer Seminar to speak on music and on “Objectivism's Greatest Enemy: Objectivists.” I have not seen the summary of this talk; however, Lindsay did write to Will that “I’ll speak about something non-fratricidal.”

In the aftermath that invitation, controversy has exploded—much of it fueled by Lindsay’s comments.

For example, about participants on the competing Objectivist Living discussion board, Lindsay writes that that “crowd … are, with barely an exception I could spot, irredeemably just plain rotten. Stinkingly, wilfully, cacklingly, conscientiously rotten.” About statements posted on that discussion board—which he always refers to as “Objectivist Lying”—he writes: “It makes my second talk on ‛Objectivism’s Worst Enemies’ as easy as my first on music. I just have to read out this stuff, say ‘I rest my case’ and get bundled off by my bodyguards.”

This propensity for incivility is alarming. Such remarks are clearly “fratricidal,” in my judgment, and they cause me to worry that his talk will not promote the civility that TAS seeks. Now, we face the very real prospect that the very sort of fratricidal conflict that we have been working hard to overcome will in fact be perpetuated at our Summer Seminar—ironically—by our very attempt to end it.

While some might argue that the posters on other discussion boards started the current controversy, those posters have also dredged up many of the past insults by Lindsay, many of which I and certainly Will Thomas probably missed. Thus, in hindsight, we at TAS should have expected such a storm of controversy.

More alarming, we also have been made aware of discussions on SOLO-Passion by some who have led personality-based jihads, who are proposing to host a participant-sponsored session at the seminar to ventilate their divisive views—and even to invite other outsiders who have expressed their contempt for TAS.

But to be clear, participant-sponsored sessions are open only to those who pay to attend the Summer Seminar. And while we leave the topics of those sessions open to almost any intellectual interest of the participants, we will not permit them to be used merely to perpetuate the personal ill-will they foment on discussion boards. Civility is the watchword at those sessions, as well.

Lindsay challenges those who oppose him to “come to my two presentations anyway. At the very least, you won’t be bored. My aim will be not merely not to bore you but to thought-provoke and uplift you also. Who knows, I might succeed? What have you to lose?” However, given the post-invitation discussions he’s led at SOLO-Passion, we now wonder whether we are about to be blind-sided. In that event, we would have plenty to lose.

Now I must ask Lindsay: Exactly what is your topic and what are your intentions? Is your aim truly to reduce “fratricide” within the movement, as we had hoped? Clearly TAS does not want to be the victim of some kind of “bait-and-switch.”

This, then, is a challenge. I want Lindsay Perigo to commit publicly to joining me in undoing the incivility in the movement that he himself has too frequently helped to foster. This, of course, means being civil in the content of any speech at TAS and in behavior at any TAS event.

But the challenge goes further. If all the energy and—yes—passion that has gone into internecine battles among Objectivists were expended instead on developing and promoting the philosophy in a constructive way, we would be much further along than we are today. Therefore I would like Lindsay to commit to this wider goal of building an open and civil Objectivist movement and to start it with SOLO-Passion, the forum for so much ill-will. I want to hear some proposals.

No, I do not expect him to withhold honest criticisms about ideas he considers mistaken. I do not expect him to become less of the colorful character that he is. I do not expect him to feign friendship with individuals with whom he has had personal fallings-out. I do not expect that he will make up with Nathaniel Branden and Barabara Branden, Sciabarra or others from whom he is estranged, nor is it my purpose to get in the middle of such relationships.

Rather, it is my purpose to influence the direction of the movement—and that is where Lindsay’s help, and everybody else’s, can be useful.

We at TAS have worked very hard both to promote an open, civil Objectivist movement. We have insisted on high-quality work. I hope our friends appreciate our past successes. We have future plans to make Objectivism a powerful philosophical force to be reckoned with. I hope our efforts can convert to friends from foes those who share our commitment to Objectivism.

If to achieve our goals we must make changes to any of our programs and activities, we will do so. We’re committed to ruthless self-examination, and open to constructive criticism.

To those ends, I await a constructive public response and commitment from Lindsay, which will help us determine whether his talk at the 2008 Summer Seminar will be consistent with our mission and purposes.

Sincerely,

Dr. Edward Hudgins,
Executive Director, The Atlas Society

[Jonathan]

Wolf DeVoon, on Jan 20 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

Okay...
1. Certify you never studied art at a government supported school, never had a Pell grant.

I've never had a Pell grant. I've studied art and a bunch of other subjects at government supported schools, just as Rand did. I've also driven on government roads and I get mail through the U.S. postal service. None of which means that I advocate the existence of those government entities or services. The fact that I disagree with many of Rand's views on aesthetics, as well as her philosophical and psychological diagnoses of artists and composers, in no way implies that I support government funding of the arts. So, where are you getting this stuff, Wolf?

Wolf DeVoon, on Jan 20 2008, 06:39 PM, said:

2. Define "art."

Let's use Rand's definition. Gangsta rap is not disqualified as art by Rand's definition.

J

This post has been edited by Jonathan: 20 January 2008 - 08:18 PM

[Wolf DeVoon]

Jonathan, on Jan 20 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

Let's use Rand's definition. Gangsta rap is not disqualified as art by Rand's definition.

Okay, Rand studied art at a government supported school, I guess. Selective recreation of reality has nothing to do with music theory, unless you go with Helmholtz and innate number harmony. I regret we got in each other's way or hair or whatever. Just goes to show that Linz has no business talking about romantic music from an Objectivist position, since there is no Objectivist theory of music.

Subtract menacing hate-filled lyrics from hip-hop, you get thunka-thunka thunka-thunka. Very creative.

W.

[Jonathan]

Wolf DeVoon, on Jan 20 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

Selective recreation of reality has nothing to do with music theory, unless you go with Helmholtz and innate number harmony.

I think that some music is intended to indirectly "recreate reality," and the idea of its being microcosmic, as Roger Bissell believes, has merit.

Wolf DeVoon, on Jan 20 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

I regret we got in each other's way or hair or whatever.

Not a big deal.

Wolf DeVoon, on Jan 20 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

Just goes to show that Linz has no business talking about romantic music from an Objectivist position, since there is no Objectivist theory of music.

Nor is there really much of an Objectivist theory of visual art, dance, architecture, etc., or an informed view of photography or abstract painting and sculpture. There's no serious critique or any indication of awareness of any opposing theories of aesthetics. My view is that the Objectivist Esthetics is the bare beginnings of an investigation into the nature of all art forms.

Wolf DeVoon, on Jan 20 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

Subtract menacing hate-filled lyrics from hip-hop, you get thunka-thunka thunka-thunka. Very creative.

That would depend on the individual work.

J

This post has been edited by Jonathan: 21 January 2008 - 06:12 PM

[Bidinotto]

While the recent posts on this thread have strayed -- mercifully -- off-topic, there is a lot posted earlier, and on a related thread, that prompts me to break my silence.

Let me emphasize that this is my personal viewpoint, and it should not be taken as representing the views of my employer or anyone other than myself.

I am saddened and depressed by what is transpiring on this site and elsewhere concerning the matter of the TAS Summer Seminar speaking invitation to Lindsay Perigo.

It didn't have to come to this, and frankly, participants on all sides of these contentious issues are deliberately making any positive resolution impossible -- by pouring more gasoline on the fire and then finding "moral" reasons to rationalize their gleeful pyromania. If there is a market for civility, it is not easy to find on many online Objectivist discussion groups -- and sadly, that observation is not meant to apply exclusively to the SOLO-Passion site.

Let me admit that my own past record on this score has hardly been unblemished; but -- seeing too clearly the dead end of this acrimony -- I have been trying to set a better example more recently, in the interests of better promoting the philosophy that we all claim to value.

However, the continuing competition in vituperative, intramural one-upsmanship is putting Ed Hudgins (and TAS) in an impossible position, when his only aim all along was to heal wounds within the Objectivist movement by encouraging greater civility. Put yourself in his shoes: At this point, any decision he makes, either to affirm or rescind that invitation, will merely be seized upon by partisans to score points and to smugly assert their sanctimonious I-told-you-sos. Any decision he renders will be damned by one side as a "cowardly capitulation" to the other side -- and all of you know it. I could write all the talking points for both sides in advance. Even five seconds of reflection will tell you that this double-bind interpretation of Ed's motives is illogical and completely unjust.

Since I realize that all the combatants on all the competing websites furtively follow all the threads devoted to this food fight, let me address you collectively:

Can any of you honestly imagine a Howard Roark sinking to this sort of mud-wrestling?

Could you imagine his posts on any of these threads?

Then, ask yourself why.

So please stop rationalizing the all personal insults, the obscene language, the gratuitous psychologizing, the He-threw-the-first-punch finger-pointing. This behavior is undignified and unseemly, and nobody involved seems to realize that it is only providing Objectivism's real enemies with an abundance of footnotes.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since this was double-posted, here is my reply (as site owner) double-posted.

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Jan 21 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

Robert,

With all due respect (and you are a person I care for deeply), you are under an incorrect impression. I personally do not want to score points or win anything. I want this whole thing to go away.

But I am appalled. Morally appalled. Common sense-wise appalled. Personally appalled. And I freely express it. The enormity of the appeasement with just plain wrong is irking me to no end. What is wrong with you guys?

Can I "honestly imagine a Howard Roark sinking to this sort of mud-wrestling?"

I can't honestly imagine Roark staying in the same room with Perigo for more than a few minutes! I certainly cannot imagine Roark inviting someone like Ellsworth Toohey to inaugurate one of his buildings. Didn't Toohey make a career out of bashing Roark? Perigo has done the same with TAS (and ARI). That's all the guy does is bash. Yet you honor him.

Well that's you. Your corner of the universe is TAS, but mine is OL. I will not stand silent on what I see as wrong, nor will I accept unearned guilt for "putting Ed Hudgins (and TAS) in an impossible position." I did not do that and I will not pretend I had a hand in it.

You guys did it. That's your baby, not mine.

Maybe it did not occur to you just how much what this guy stands for is hated by people seeking to live a life of productive rational values.

I suggest you check your premises.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Bidinotto, on Jan 21 2008, 05:48 PM, said:

However, the continuing competition in vituperative, intramural one-upsmanship is putting Ed Hudgins (and TAS) in an impossible position, when his only aim all along was to heal wounds within the Objectivist movement by encouraging greater civility. Put yourself in his shoes: At this point, any decision he makes, either to affirm or rescind that invitation, will merely be seized upon by partisans to score points and to smugly assert their sanctimonious I-told-you-sos. Any decision he renders will be damned by one side as a "cowardly capitulation" to the other side -- and all of you know it. I could write all the talking points for both sides in advance. Even five seconds of reflection will tell you that this double-bind interpretation of Ed's motives is illogical and completely unjust.

Robert,

I'm sorry to say that it just doesn't wash. Sure, the battling "is putting Ed Hudgins (and TAS) in an impossible position." But the over-riding question I have about the whole incident is WHY did Will and Ed not know that that exactly would be the result? Why were they so oblivious at the wheel? That Ed's aim all along was to heal wounds, I can fully believe. But how could he possibly have imagined that the decision to invite Linz Perigo to talk at the forthcoming Seminar -- so close after the Atlas Celebration, and on the topics Linz has chosen -- would ever accomplish anything except the opposite of the goal? It's the complete out-of-itness as to the realities of who the people are, what the issues dividing them are, what the results would inevitably be which I find mind-boggling -- and a very poor advertisement for the wisdom of the TOC leadership. Had Ed waited till next year and done some preparing... Alternately, if there was a strong desire to invite Linz this year, if a relatively innocuous subject -- such as, e.g., the political picture in New Zealand -- had been proposed to Linz instead of leaving him to choose two subjects sure to inflame, and then accepting the choice...

Instead, given the way the timing and the details were handled, I can only think, quoting from Francisco:

"Brothers, you asked for it." In other words, contra your statement "It didn't have to come to this," yes, it did. It was doomed to come to this, given the way it was handled, as some careful attention to what goes on in listland could have foreseen.

Ellen

(Post cross-posted here.)
___

This post has been edited by Ellen Stuttle: 21 January 2008 - 07:59 PM

[jordanz]

In all of this, I wish Will had not invited Lindsay. I believe this was a mistake. That said, people make mistakes. I'm not holding it against TAS (I just re-upped my sponsorship) and I will be attending the Summer Seminar. If Lindsay is there, I will ignore him which is more than he deserves.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I don't quite see what's so important or compelling about the Summer gathering. But I recognize snooty insults. Jonathan, MSK and I were discussing music, one of Perigo's scheduled topics.

Bidinotto: ...recent posts on this thread have strayed off-topic... I am saddened and depressed by what is transpiring on this site... This behavior is undignified and unseemly, and nobody involved seems to realize that it is only providing Objectivism's real enemies with an abundance of footnotes.

Objectivism has enemies? -- oh, no! Islamic jihadists are going to quote my OL posts.

Bidinotto: Could you imagine [Howard Roark's] posts on any of these threads?

Asks an interesting question. Who is today's Roark? It ain't Lindsay Perigo. I'm not an architect, so it isn't me. Does anyone know of an architect whose work has been ridiculed for being modernistic, unwilling to build good old Colonial with dark hallways and ducks on the door? Is Ed Hudgins an architect?

Hudgins: At the Summer Seminar, we seek to develop our understanding and application of Objectivism...

Apparently he seeks help understanding Objectivism.

Okay. This is an electronic discussion forum, where Objectivists and others exchange information and ideas pertaining to the world around us today. We know the body of work. It has problems. We know the history of the Objectivist 'movement,' which is shrinking, not growing, except here on the web. Walking away from OL is surrendering the future to guys like me. Good joke on you, Mr. Bidinotto.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

jordanz, on Jan 21 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

I'm not holding it against TAS (I just re-upped my sponsorship) and I will be attending the Summer Seminar. If Lindsay is there, I will ignore him which is more than he deserves.

Jordan,

I fully agree with your position and admire your independence about doing what is best for Jordan.

I want to make it clear that I am not advocating anyone boycott TAS or any kind of movement whatsoever. Each person speaks for himself and does what is in his/her best interest.

I also want to make something else clear. In the posting guidelines to OL, I stated that there will be no Branden-bashing. I meant it.

Promoting one of the main Branden-bashers of all time (who is in bed with other principal Branden-bashers) is almost the same thing as direct bashing. I will not have it on OL. If people want to promote a Branden-basher, let them do it elsewhere. It's an awfully big Internet world out there. I HATE making this kind of statement, but this goes for everyybody.

No Branden-bashing.
No promoting Branden-bashers.

(And yes, it is OK to bash Branden-bashers. )

I don't care who likes this or who approves of it. This has been the policy since the founding of OL and it has been stated many times. Kat and I have been open about it. OL even went for about 6 months at the beginning being bashed everyday by SOLOP people without response to the incessant goading. I worked the emails to keep it down, too. But I finally gave up the ghost before the inevitable...

If anyone needs or wants to see how to properly disagree with a Branden on OL, especially with Barbara, please look at a recent post by Dan Edge, a young ARI OAC student (or any number of posts by regulars). If you want to see how not to, look at SLOP.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Robert B,

I don't envy your situation right now--or Ed's.

However, none of this stuff just started happening.

What you call

Bidinotto, on Jan 21 2008, 05:48 PM, said:

the continuing competition in vituperative, intramural one-upmanship [that] is putting Ed Hudgins (and TAS) in an impossible position, when his only aim all along was to heal wounds within the Objectivist movement by encouraging greater civility.

has been going on for two and a half years, since the middle of 2005.

And Mr. Valliant, seeking to restore a 39-year-old schism to full divisiveness, published his book three years ago.

How long all of this had been going on, and what had been going on, needed to be taken into account, when the mere idea of inviting Mr. Perigo to speak at this year's Summer Seminar first dawned on somebody.

Beyond that, all I can say is that top managers get paid more money than most of the rest of us do, precisely because they get to deal with problems of this kind.

I think Ed Hudgins will more than earn his compensation this year...

Robert C

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just so I can get this off my mind, are their any people here on OL who are engaged in "finding 'moral' reasons to rationalize their gleeful pyromania"?

Are there any ungleeful pyromaniacs on OL?

Are there any pyromaniacs on OL, gleeful or ungleeful, who do not rationalize with moral reasons?

Is it necessary to be a pyromaniac in order to rationalize on OL, or is being gleeful enough?

Am I the only one who found this statement by Robert B strange?



Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Jan 21 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

Just so I can get this off my mind, are their any people here on OL who are engaged in "finding 'moral' reasons to rationalize their gleeful pyromania"?

Are there any ungleeful pyromaniacs on OL?

Are there any pyromaniacs on OL, gleeful or ungleeful, who do not rationalize with moral reasons?

Is it necessary to be a pyromaniac in order to rationalize on OL, or is being gleeful enough?

Am I the only one who found this statement by Robert B strange?



Michael

I don't know. When I was a boy I started a fire; no damage done. But the babysitter never came back.

--Brant

[Jerry Biggers]

What is the problem here? This, ah,...."discussion," started when Wil Thomas, for some reason not clear (no, incomprehensible) to the rest of us, decided to invite Lindsay Perigo to give a talk at the next Summer Seminar.

Whatever Wil's reasoning for this was, has not been explained. At this point, it no longer matters. However, it is clear from Ed Hudgins' statement that many reasons have been given to him by members of this forum and by other TAS members, why Mr. Perigo's past and current behavior do not justify his inclusion in the Summer Seminar. And Mr. Perigo, has made it abundantly clear by his response to Ed, that he has no intention to change his current inappropriate behavior.

The damage was caused when it became known that TAS had invited him. It was an error. So correct it: withdraw the invitation, with an explanation why, based on Ed's statement and Mr. Perigo's response.

Admitting and correcting an error in judgment would not exactly be unprecedented within the Objectivist movement (gross understatement).

To continue with this Perigo invitation is folly. Please, just end it. Now.

And then we can move on to other things that really count. Like advancing Objectivism.

[Chris Grieb]

Jerry; Thank you! I agree.

You have provided the solution.

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

Will Thomas's explanation (pretty consistently expressed in two different emails) is that

(1) Uniting the Objectivist movement is important;

(2) Uniting the Objectivist movement means being inclusive of all significant players therein;

(3) Lindsay Perigo, as editor of the Free Radical and principal at SOLOPassion, is a significant player;

(4) Lindsay Perigo got high marks from the audience for his 2004 Summer Seminar talk ("The Elixir of Youth");

Therefore, Mr. Perigo should be invited to speak at the Summer Seminar.

I've asked Will whether criteria like (1) - (3) wouldn't militate for the inclusion of Jim Valliant, Regi Firehammer, or Peter Schwartz (assuming permission from higher authorities, in Schwartz's case) as Summer Seminar speakers. I never got an answer.

I've asked whether Mr. Perigo's conduct post-2004, particularly his decision to renege on a Summer Seminar invitation in 2006 and stage a counter-speech at a Borders bookstore, might detract from point (4), but Will continues to insist on Mr. Perigo's sterling qualities as a speaker.

I don't know whether Will has listened to the audio of the Borders bookstore oration. I've asked him about it twice now and not gotten an answer. But Will has consistently maintained that Mr. Perigo's positive qualities, as an Objectivist motivational speaker, outweigh his rudeness or his proneness to vendettas or even his slams at TAS and its principals.

Meanwhile, it's 2008 and I'm having trouble finding any of these purported positive qualities...

Clearly, Will's intention is to keep Lindsay Perigo on the Summer Seminar program.

Judging from Robert Bidinotto's recent chiding posts here on OL, I've come around to the view that the TAS leadership is about to reaffirm the invitation.

Either Mr. Perigo's open defiance of Ed Hudgins' request for civility will be ignored--or it will be excused because it was all provoked by some of us at Objectivist Living.

Robert Campbell

[Judith]

Bidinotto, on Jan 21 2008, 05:48 PM, said:

If there is a market for civility, it is not easy to find on many online Objectivist discussion groups.

. . .


So please stop rationalizing the all personal insults, the obscene language, the gratuitous psychologizing, the He-threw-the-first-punch finger-pointing. This behavior is undignified and unseemly, and nobody involved seems to realize that it is only providing Objectivism's real enemies with an abundance of footnotes.

Robert makes an excellent point. Is there nowhere left to go to discuss Objectivism where one isn't constantly exposed to prepubescent name-calling and sneering?

I don't know much about Lindsay Perigo. I frankly couldn't care less. I checked out the SOLOP site a few times, didn't feel at home there, and haven't been back.

If I don't like someone's stuff, you know what I do? I DON'T READ HIS FREAKIN' STUFF!!!!

I've found it embarrassing to find things like "Pigero" and "SLOP" repeatedly on this site, as if they were funny, or profound, or making some coherent point. Don't tell me, "You don't know him," or "He deserves it." It doesn't matter if he does or if he does not; things like that demean the speaker. Back in seventh grade I expected such things of my peers. Not now. If you don't like his stuff, why do you folks keep reading it and coming back here and telling everyone else about it? And if you DO have to read it and complain about it, can you at least keep the discussion at an adult level? I can avoid some of it by avoiding certain threads, like PARC, but other bits of it pervade the entire discussion list. And OL appears to be the best there is, so if not here, where is there left to go?

Judith

[Jerry Biggers]

Robert Campbell, on Jan 22 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

Jerry,

Will Thomas's explanation (pretty consistently expressed in two different emails) is that

(1) Uniting the Objectivist movement is important;

(2) Uniting the Objectivist movement means being inclusive of all significant players therein;

(3) Lindsay Perigo, as editor of the Free Radical and principal at SOLOPassion, is a significant player;

(4) Lindsay Perigo got high marks from the audience for his 2004 Summer Seminar talk ("The Elixir of Youth");

Therefore, Mr. Perigo should be invited to speak at the Summer Seminar.

I've asked Will whether criteria like (1) - (3) wouldn't militate for the inclusion of Jim Valliant, Regi Firehammer, or Peter Schwartz (assuming permission from higher authorities, in Schwartz's case) as Summer Seminar speakers. I never got an answer.

I've asked whether Mr. Perigo's conduct post-2004, particularly his decision to renege on a Summer Seminar invitation in 2006 and stage a counter-speech at a Borders bookstore, might detract from point (4), but Will continues to insist on Mr. Perigo's sterling qualities as a speaker.

I don't know whether Will has listened to the audio of the Borders bookstore oration. I've asked him about it twice now and not gotten an answer. But Will has consistently maintained that Mr. Perigo's positive qualities, as an Objectivist motivational speaker, outweigh his rudeness or his proneness to vendettas or even his slams at TAS and its principals.

Meanwhile, it's 2008 and I'm having trouble finding any of these purported positive qualities...

Clearly, Will's intention is to keep Lindsay Perigo on the Summer Seminar program.

Judging from Robert Bidinotto's recent chiding posts here on OL, I've come around to the view that the TAS leadership is about to reaffirm the invitation.

Either Mr. Perigo's open defiance of Ed Hudgins' request for civility will be ignored--or it will be excused because it was all provoked by some of us at Objectivist Living.

Robert Campbell

If that is what Wil is saying, it is extremely disappointing, to say the least.

Apparently, he has chosen to completely ignore the defamatory comments that Perigo has made about the TAS leadership over the past several years. Or he has not read them. You mean, any misconduct by Perigo is acceptable? Because he is a "motivational speaker"?!?? I did not see anything motivational on his SOLOP site.

If that is truly the TAS position, then they might as well invite Peter Schwartz and the other ARIans. Of course, that action will destroy the credibility of TAS. And most likely cause a reduction of support of TAS by its membership. It will certainly cause a drop in TAS Summer Institute attendance.

Most Objectivists joined TAS based on its principled stand. The positions that David Kelley stated in his The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand" are precisely what Perigo and the ARIans have condemned.

This dispute was not caused by those posting on OL, or by its owners. We have been responding with incredulity and outrage at the Perigo invitation based on his own statements and conduct. Perigo, by his own actions, has discredited himself as a responsible proponent of Objectivism. If this behavior is ignored then it is about as clear an example of Rand's "SANCTION OF THE VICTIM" as one is likely to find.

This invitation to Perigo is so blatantly irrational that it makes me wonder if something else is going on here. But I have no idea what that might be.

TAS should correct their mistake before any further damage is done.

[Dragonfly]

Jerry Biggers, on Jan 23 2008, 01:49 AM, said:

This dispute was not caused by those posting on OL, or by its owners. We have been responding with incredulity and outrage at the Perigo invitation based on his own statements and conduct. Perigo, by his own actions, has discredited himself as a responsible proponent of Objectivism. If this behavior is ignored then it is about as clear an example of Rand's "SANCTION OF THE VICTIM" as one is likely to find.

Right, it's always the easy way out to blame other people for your own blunders.

Quote

This invitation to Perigo is so blatantly irrational that it makes me wonder if something else is going on here. But I have no idea what that might be.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Quote

TAS should correct their mistake before any further damage is done.

It's too late, the damage is done. They've already lost all credibility, who can take that bunch now seriously? Thomas' cowardly evading Robert's questions speaks volumes.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Judith, on Jan 22 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

OL appears to be the best there is, so if not here, where is there left to go?

Judith

Yep. The best there is. Something to think about, esp. for the future. No criticism of the crisis at TAS or discussion thereof. But a very interesting idea that maybe OL has more potential than we customarily assume.

W.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Robert Campbell, on Jan 22 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

Jerry,

Will Thomas's explanation (pretty consistently expressed in two different emails) is that

(1) Uniting the Objectivist movement is important;

[....]

They're succeeding brilliantly at doing that. (I.e., unreal.)

Ellen

___