[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore
by Michael Stuart Kelly

In early 2005, an unknown author and government attorney, James Valliant, published a book entitled The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. It is abbreviated as PARC.

The thesis of the book is that both Brandens had badly damaged Rand's reputation by smearing her in an underhanded—not easily perceived—manner in their published books and that Rand's own journal entries at the time of the break between her and the Brandens prove her to be such a victim.

At the time of publication, this book received the endorsement of almost the entire orthodox Objectivist community. This was fueled by the fact that Leonard Peikoff, Rand's heir, had granted Valliant the right to publish Ayn Rand's journal entries from the time of the break, going from the end of 1967 up to the middle of 1968. Peikoff also heartily endorsed the book by claiming the following*:

Peikoff said:

Jim Valliant... is one of the few people that knows what he's talking about when he says something.

I admit I also think of Valliant sometimes as a "that" and not as a "who." I also admit that this is not very important, but there it is. This quote was posted by the Chicago Objectivist Society in their announcement of Valliant's talk on April 15, 2006.

* NOTE ON MAY 20, 2008: Valliant just revealed that this quote is from the video jacket of Ideas in Action, which, according to him, was published 10 years earlier than PARC. I just documented this in a post. As you can see in the full context in the Noodelfood post reproduced below, there is a strong insinuation that Peikoff wrote this to plug PARC. At any rate, Peikoff endorsed PARC enough to let Valliant use Rand's unpublished journal entries. I have no formal knowledge of what his evaluation of the finished book is, but I have a good guess, and I guess it has changed over time.

There are no archives of this announcement on the Chicago Objectivist Society's website and the Wayback Machine entry for it apparently has been deleted. The entire announcement, however, was repeated verbatim on Noodlefood on March 21, 2006. Here is the full blog post in case it should likewise disappear one day (I did not include the links in the post):

Hsieh said:

Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Jim Valliant in Chicago on April 15th
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:20 AM
The Chicago Objectivist Society is hosting two lectures by Jim Valliant about The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics on April 15th:
Ayn Rand and the Virtue of Integrity by James Valliant

James Valliant, the author of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, is presenting two new lectures to the Chicago Objectivist Society. For the last twenty years, Ayn Rand has been the victim of attacks on her behavior and psychology inspired by the biographies of Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden. Finally, a critical response to the Branden's allegations has been published, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, by James S. Valliant.

In this two-part lecture, Mr. Valliant first examines the problems with the Brandens' accounts. The second part of this lecture is a unique insight into Ayn Rand's character from the only author who has had access to her private journals.

"Jim Valliant... is one of the few people that knows what he's talking about when he says something." -- Leonard Peikoff, author of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

Part I: Ayn Rand and the Virtue of Integrity

This engaging lecture lays to rest the myths about Ayn Rand's life and character that have been promulgated by her detractors. It is highlighted by extensive, never-before-published personal journal entries of Ayn Rand. These passages are immensely valuable, not only in revealing the claims of Rand's critics to be profoundly inaccurate and unjust, but also in showcasing her epochal mind at work resolving complex questions of personal life.

Part II: Working With Ayn Rand's Journals

Mr. Valliant will discuss the process of writing this book, how and why the Estate of Ayn Rand made Rand's private journals available to Mr. Valliant - and his surprise at the dramatic confirmation of his hypotheses. Mr. Valliant will describe his experience working with Rand's Estate, and share his insights about Ayn Rand's personality - her serenity and rationality, her righteous anger, her careful moral judgment of others, and, above all, her remarkable integrity.

About James Valliant

James Valliant is the author of *The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics* and the editor of Ayn Rand's private journals used during his research. His op-eds have appeared in publications such as The San Francisco Chronicle.

He has been a Deputy District Attorney in the San Diego area for over 16 years. Mr. Valliant is a magna cum laude graduate of New York University with a degree in philosophy. He received his JurisDoctorate from the University of San Diego. With his wife, he created the 1995 television interview show, Ideas in Action, the winner of two prestigious Cinema in Industry (CINDY) Awards.

Mr. Valliant is a regular expert commentator on several news programs in San Diego, California, including Fox 6 and KUSI news programs as a religious, legal, and political analyst. His next book is on the origins of the New Testament, and will be titled, Behind the Cross.

Date: Saturday, April 15th

Time:
12:30-1:00 pm: Author Meet and Greet/Reception
1:00-2:40 pm: Part I: Lecture + Author Signing
2:45-4:00 pm: Lunch Break
4:00-6:00 pm: Part II: Lecture + Author Signing

8:00 pm: Dinner with Mr. Valliant
Location: Downtown Chicago at the DePaul University Campus. More specific information will be provided to registrants.

Cost: $44 per person ($34 full time students) before April 3rd
$49 ($39 full time students) after April 3rd

Enrollment: E-mail contact@chicagoobjectivists.org your RSVP.

You can pay with a credit card via the Chicago Objectivist Society's web page.

The comments to the post had nothing of interest to add. There is a repeat of the entire Noodlefood post on the Objectivism Online Metablog dated March 21, 2006. Also, there is a notification by Stephen Speicher on Mar 18 2006 on the Forum4AynRandFans which also gives the Peikoff quote.

I ask the reader to please excuse the level of detail on documenting this Peikoff quote, but this is a perfect concrete example of two points that are germane to what I am discussing here, which is that nobody is taking PARC seriously anymore.

Point 1. The method used by Valliant of distorting reality and rewriting it to fit his evaluations does not come from him. It comes from the top of the heap. I remember reading this Peikoff quote all over the place back when it was first posted. Currently, the three places linked above are the only ones left that I have been able to find. If you want to check for yourself, I suggest you Google it. Just to make sure, I checked the Google, Yahoo, Live, Ask and Mahalo search engines. This is a clear indication that someone has been going around asking people to remove it.

This kind of behavior is tiresome to people who have their own lives to lead and it eventually becomes difficult to document. The idea behind doing that is to distort public image through constant corrosive activity. As an old saying goes, "Drops wear down the stone, not by strength, but by constant falling."

Rhetoric-wise, this is the exact method used in PARC. Valliant did not arrive at this method on his own. He learned it from his orthodox Objectivist betters.

Point 2. The very fact that the quote is being silently removed is an indication that ARI is starting to distance itself from Valliant's book, or at least Peikoff no longer wants to provide such a solid endorsement. Granted, PARC is still being sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore, but I personally think that this is a face-saving measure. If ARI removed it from the catalog, that would be tantamount to admitting that Peikoff made a colossal mistake in entrusting Rand's journals to such an incompetent boneheaded author as Valliant.

The fact is that nobody but a Branden-hater ever really took the PARC seriously in the first place (except for a convert or two on the Internet forums over the last 3 years—and you can count those converts on the fingers of one hand). The act of demonizing a person or group to the extent PARC did is a solid indication of tribalism.

If you want to have a good example of how this works in reality, go to the comments section on the Amazon sales page for PARC. You will find two basic kinds of comments: people who solidly endorse the book, but pepper their comments with practically nothing but wishful opinions about burying the Brandens, and readers who are appalled at Valliant's obvious distortions.

You can also notice that those who are appalled are generally given one star and those who express approval are given 5 stars. What this means is that there is a small tribe actively trying to manipulate the rating system to present a false public image that PARC is making some kind of impact. They want to give the impression that the majority of Amazon visitors disapprove of the negative reviews. Unfortunately, there are too many negative reviews for this to come across as intended and the distortion is obvious.

Now here we come to a real problem with discussing PARC anywhere. The tribe members are (or were) committed to defending the book at all costs. This meant that they did not care about the veracity of any facts. They have tried to win any and all arguments by wearing people down.

Valliant is particularly slippery in this respect in his online behavior. He is an active poster on the Solo Passion website and was active on its precursor, SoloHQ. He always leaves himself wiggle-room to get out of owning up to an obvious fact if it goes against his Branden demonizing Rand whitewashing campaign, but then he comes back the next day repeating his original point as if the fact that was presented did not exist.

This is trying to win an argument by wearing people out, not by having actual facts that contradict the one presented. Unfortunately for him, people have become aware of this. It is the main reason that PARC is not being taken seriously anymore.

What's worse is that nobody is ever convinced by this method. They are merely silenced for a while. They get bored. There is only one reason this obvious truth is not understood by Valliant and those who do like he does: they are disconnected from reality. If they were connected, they would understand that they are not defending Rand at all. They are simply driving people away from the discussion, even their own tribe-members.

Still, Valliant is so slippery that his method is hard to document in an open-and-shut manner that cannot be denied even by acolytes. However, Neil Parille gave a brilliant performance in nailing Valliant to the wall in a manner that eliminated the wiggle-room. Valliant literally had no way out and capitulated. He had to just to save face. But he still did not capitulate entirely to owning up to the facts. And he is still trying to win God knows what by wearing folks down. (He seems oblivious to the fact that there are precious few of us left who even read him.)

Here are some highlights to a discussion between Valliant and Neil. It concerns the veracity of Barbara Branden's meeting with Ayn Rand shortly before she died. This issue was discussed amply in other places where PARC was discussed, with Valliant using a wide range of his traditional smarmy rhetoric, but frankly I do not feel like wading through all of that again. The recent discussion is more than enough to illustrate my point.

On Feb, 27, 2008, Neil mentioned the following on Solo Passion:

Parille said:

Jim says on page 94 that "Rand never saw [Ms. Branden] again." That's incorrect. On pages 397-400, Barbara Branden discusses meeting Rand in 1981.

On Feb, 28, Valliant responded (amidst a plethora of smarmy language):

Valliant said:

Also, Ms. B. makes the claim that she later saw Rand. Is there any corroboration of this self-serving claim? (Do try to keep the rest of PARC in mind.)

On Feb, 29, Neil posted:

Parille said:

You say that Barbara Branden never met Rand again, so you believe that she is lying.

What did you do to attempt to verify or refute her claim? Did you contact the housekeeper who Barbara says was there? (You claim she says Barbara misrepresented her on Frank's alleged drinking, so I assume you talked to her). Did you contact the ARI archives and ask if they had any correspondence relevant to this issue (Barbara says she wrote a letter to Rand after the meeting)? Did you ask Peikoff if he knows anything about this meeting?

Valliant refused to answer and made a smarmy post instead, accusing Neil of avoiding questions.

On Feb, 29, Neil posted again:

Parille said:

1. Did you contact the housekeeper who Barbara says was there?

2. Did you contact the ARI archives and ask if they had any correspondence relevant to this issue (Barbara says she wrote a letter to Rand after the meeting)?

3. Did you ask Peikoff if he knows anything about this meeting?

Not difficult questions.

Valliant still refused to answer, although he posted more smarmy crap.

On Feb, 29, Neil posted once again:

Parille said:

You are claiming that BB made up this story of a 1981 meeting. Considering that you often find the Branden books credible, I think you have the burden of proof in showing that this meeting was fictional.

That being said, I did email the Archives and asked them about this. If they respond and give me permission to post it, I will do so.

On March 1, Valliant responded:

Valliant said:

Of course, I make no such argument in PARC as the one you are now arguing against, but imagine, for just a moment, if you can, that it even acknowledged Ms. B.'s claim about meeting Rand later -- despite your inability to provide any corroboration at this point. (But do keep up your researches -- you're bound to learn.)

I think if Valliant had imagined the outcome, he would not have been so smarmy here. Just to make sure that this issue is understood correctly, Valliant is lying. He actually did "make such argument in PARC." It is on page 94. Here is a direct quote (and Neil already quoted part of this). Valliant is discussing affairs in 1968 during the time of the break.

Valliant in PARC said:

At her attorney's advice, Rand authorized him to invite Ms. Branden to a meeting so that they could discuss the accusations she was making. Ms. Branden never came and Rand never saw her again.

How can anyone imagine, other than making it up or lying, that Barbara would report later meeting Rand if "Rand never saw her again?" Valliant is either incredibly sloppy here or he is the one lying. I think he is both based on his behavior.

What's worse, Valliant not only refused to admit he had not checked the archives or Peikoff, he insinuated that no corroboration existed and that he had actually checked the archives.

But let's not take him at his insinuation. Let's take him at his word. In July 2006, Barbara made a speech at The Atlas Society's summer conference entitled "Objectivism and Rage." Valliant participated in a book-signing nearby around that time to try to cash in on TAS's public. During the Q&A following a speech he gave, he made the following statement (and this is from the horse's own mouth). This mp3 was posted on Solo Passion for a while. I cut off the beginning and end to reduce the size. What is left was extracted whole, without editing, from the original.



If you have any trouble operating the player, just right-click on the link below and choose "Save target as" (or link or file or something similar) to download the mp3 file to your hard disk. The file's real name is Valliant2006_07_06_QA-shortened.mp3.

Valliant's opinion of Barbara's last visit to Ayn Rand

Here is a transcription.

Quote

Valliant: Yes, Andrew?

Andrew: What do you think of the fact that Barbara Branden visited Ayn Rand before she died, uhm [unintelligible]?

Valliant: No. There is no corroboration in any of Ayn Rand's notes or in any of the evidence from the Ayn Rand Archives that there was such a meeting as Barbara Branden describes later in their lives. That doesn't mean it was the case. It doesn't mean it wasn't the case. I will have to say what I said [unintelligible] in the book about that.

Everything that either one of the Brandens says that does not have independent corroboration from a credible source is to be dismissed out of hand as an arbitrary assertion.

What can be more self-interested than her reconciled with Ayn Rand?

She didn't think I was such a bad person. She forgave me. Forget what 1968… all that denunciation by Ms. Rand, because, you know, in the end she forgave me.

What could be more nakedly self-serving than such an assertion? If there was such a meeting, I have no idea what was said. I have no idea whether or not Ayn Rand spat in her face if there was such a meeting, which, probably, would have been the appropriate behavior. But no. No.

Branden has a similar story about his third wife meeting Ayn Rand—Devers Branden—and such a semi-reconciliation as well.

Both stories I dismiss out of hand.

Can there be any doubt that Valliant claims to have the authority of the Ayn Rand Archives to doubt Barbara's story? Is there any wiggle-room at all here?

Then came the bomb.

On March 7, Neil posted a thread on Solo Passion entitled "Barbara Branden's Meeting With Ayn Rand In 1981." Here is the text of that post:

Parille said:

In The Passion of Ayn Rand, Barbara Branden says that she met Rand in 1981 and wrote Rand a letter thereafter. (PAR, pp. 397-400.)

In The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, James Valliant says that Rand never saw Barbara Branden again after their split. (PARC, p. 94.)

I contacted the Archives of the ARI and they confirm that there is evidence that this meeting took place. Specifically, although the letter mentioned by Barbara Branden was not found, Cynthia Peikoff (who was Rand's secretary in 1981), mentions the letter and the meeting in the forthcoming 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, by Scott McConnell.

Reference assistance, courtesy the Ayn Rand Archives, A Special Collection of the Ayn Rand Institute.

I thank the Archives for their response.

Did Valliant say "Oops!"? Did he say, "I'm sorry for the mistake"? Did he say, "I actually did not consult the archives about this"?

No.

He acted as if he knew all along how it would turn out. Take a look at this incredible lack of owning up (on March 7). What is amazing about the post is that Valliant is so boneheaded he doesn't even see the implications in his own statement. Here is what he said about the ARI archives in that post:

Valliant said:

It showed that even if the documentary evidence that you were looking for doesn't exist (something I had already noticed), they will work to give you their best information.

Say what?

Does this mean that "they will work to give you their best information" to Neil, but did not give their best to Valliant when he was right there in the building during extended stays doing research for his book?

Can there be any doubt that Valliant is lying about something?

I think he is an incredibly shoddy scholar and/or equally shoddy liar. No wonder Peikoff (or his supporters) is silently removing his endorsement from the Internet.

Even with Valliant's own mendacity rubbed in his nose in public, he still had the gall to say (in that boneheaded post):

Valliant said:

Now, as to how the meeting may have gone down... (the most suspicious part of all)?

And, of course, this information has no impact on anything else in that chapter. Not one little thing. So, perhaps, you might want to take my earlier suggestion, ignore this item, and tell me what's wrong with the conclusions -- or, indeed, anything else -- in that chapter.

If you can.

To be fair, Valliant thanked Neil twice, once in that boneheaded post and once on another thread. Neil has also documented some of this in his article on OL, "The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part III."

Since then, Valliant has not become more humble. He has not asked for corrections (other than rhetorically to try to prove that none need to be made in PARC). He has not shown good will at all to accept facts and question whether or not he may have made other incorrect assumptions. On the contrary, he has started melting down and some of his current posts border on unintelligibility.

For instance, in later trying to chastise Neil (March 12), Valliant made an incredibly stupid blunder again, practically fessing up to his own shoddiness:

Valliant said:

And you're still making stuff up, I see. No one told me that there was no meeting -- and there is no reason to suppose that anyone did.

Of course there is no reason to suppose that anyone at the archives told him anything if one already knows that he did not ask anyone about it. But since he claimed he knew what was and was not in the archives (and there is much more online from Valliant making this claim than I gave above if anyone wants to look for it), it is reasonable to think someone from the archives told him there was no meeting between Barbara and Rand, or at least there was no evidence in the archives of such.

Now I want you, dear reader, if you are still awake or with me in this life-shattering topic, to think about the following. (That was sarcasm.) Look at how much crap was needed to get Valliant to stop spreading one boneheaded smear (with an accompanying bare-faced lie) out of a gazillion in PARC.

It would be possible to do that point-by-point and I assure you that Valliant would not fare well in the exercise. But who has the time for all of that?

I would not suggest using the following method on hardly any other book, but I know this one in depth. It is 100% safe to conclude that if Valliant used such sloppiness and lack of morality in the issue of Barbara meeting Rand at the end of Rand's life, he did that in other cases in PARC. As I said, there are gazillions. In fact, he did that so often that this is exactly what the people in the Amazon reader reviews of PARC sensed and what made them so appalled. The real issue is not pro-Rand or contra-Rand or pro-Brandens or contra-Brandens. It is the implications involved in fabricating and endorsing an intellectual swindle.

Objectivism is a philosophy of integrity, or it is supposed to be. Is lack of integrity, outright lying and gross intellectual sloppiness what ARI really wants to endorse? Do they really want their name associated with this crap? Do they really want to show the world that Peikoff will endorse something irrationally out of hatred—even when it has been incontestably proven wrong—and not out of reason?

PARC is not a serious book. Valliant is not a serious scholar. Shame on the people who allowed some of Rand's most intimate writing to see the light of day in this bonehead's hands. And shame on the people who endorsed this mess.

* * * * *

EDIT on June 9, 2009: Dr. Peikoff finally made a public statement with reference to PARC. It is on his website, but after the time of this posting passes, you will probably have to locate it by searching for it. As presented currently, it is a note to the podcast of June 8, 2009. The message in its entirety is given below. Oddly enough, Dr. Peikoff CC'd his personal email addressed to Mr. Wales to Robert Campbell. I say odd because he had never had any communication or contact with Robert before that virtual carbon copy.

Peikoff said:

Welcome to the official website of Leonard Peikoff — the world's foremost authority on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.


June 8, 2009

To my listeners:

I would appreciate any help that you can give me in my effort to reverse Wikipedia’s decision in this issue.

Thank you,

Leonard Peikoff


Dear Mr. Wales,

I learned recently to my astonishment that while books by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, attacking Ayn Rand and her personal life, enjoy the status of reputable references in Wikipedia, a book disputing their claims and presenting the opposite viewpoint has been removed from your list as non-reputable. I refer to The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics by James Valliant published in May 2005. On its face, this is a policy of egregious injustice on your part.

As Ayn Rand’s executor, heir, and longtime personal friend, I will testify in any forum to the accuracy of Mr. Valliant’s book. I do not pretend to know every detail of the clash between Rand and the Brandens, but I do know firsthand the essential truth of the Valliant book. I leave aside here my own personal observations and discussions on this issue with Rand, because the book itself contains lengthy excerpts from her own personal notes, which completely bear out Valliant’s thesis in her own words. I released these notes only after a 20 year wait, because in Valliant I found at last a writer who would give her personal viewpoint a rational hearing, neither hostile nor worshipful.

My understanding, which may not be correct, is that one of the instigators of your new policy is Barbara Branden, one of the two persons identified in the Valliant book, with substantial corroborating evidence, as hostile to Ayn Rand. Surely such an individual and her claque have a transparent motive to kill this book. Can you justify removing one side of this dispute, the one endorsed by someone with my credentials? Do you describe as “reputable” only enemies of Ayn Rand?

There are those in the academic world who question the objectivity of Wikipedia. I hope that your action on this matter will prove that they are wrong.

Sincerely yours,

Leonard Peikoff
Executor, Estate of Ayn Rand

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on May 25 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

Phil,

I used to agree with you. I don't any longer—not when an issue like PARC is run by a group of zealots to try to hijack the intellectual playing field and create a tribe just shy of a cult in the name of Objectivism. And not when that almost-cult is based on scapegoating persons of historical and intellectual importance to Objectivism.

Folks, the sort of issue going on here is just the sort of issue which produced the big split in Islam and the various splits in Christianity. The argument over whether or not the Brandens -- especially Nathaniel Branden -- are to be viewed as demon figures or not is going to continue as long as there are more than something on the order of two or three people who think of themselves as Objectivists. The break between the Brandens and Ayn Rand is a major Primal Drama of the Objectivist scene. And an expectation -- or at least hope -- such as Phil's that this Drama might eventually quit occupying attention, I think is historically naive.

Furthermore, I disagree strongly with Phil's opinion that it's a distraction from thoughts about guiding one's life by a philosophy to debate details of what persons supposedly practicing that philosophy are doing. Life is lived by individual people, not by abstract notions. It's through examining the details of what people do that learning occurs about principles in action. Recall AR's explaining why dramatizing a moral code in a story is so much more effective in making that code's message real. People learn how to and not to proceed in their own lives by observing, analyzing, talking about, criticizing/praising the in-vivo actions of others.

Ellen

___

[Bill P]

Ellen Stuttle, on May 26 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

Michael Stuart Kelly, on May 25 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

Phil,

I used to agree with you. I don't any longer—not when an issue like PARC is run by a group of zealots to try to hijack the intellectual playing field and create a tribe just shy of a cult in the name of Objectivism. And not when that almost-cult is based on scapegoating persons of historical and intellectual importance to Objectivism.

Folks, the sort of issue going on here is just the sort of issue which produced the big split in Islam and the various splits in Christianity. The argument over whether or not the Brandens -- especially Nathaniel Branden -- are to be viewed as demon figures or not is going to continue as long as there are more than something on the order of two or three people who think of themselves as Objectivists. The break between the Brandens and Ayn Rand is a major Primal Drama of the Objectivist scene. And an expectation -- or at least hope -- such as Phil's that this Drama might eventually quit occupying attention, I think is historically naive.

Furthermore, I disagree strongly with Phil's opinion that it's a distraction from thoughts about guiding one's life by a philosophy to debate details of what persons supposedly practicing that philosophy are doing. Life is lived by individual people, not by abstract notions. It's through examining the details of what people do that learning occurs about principles in action. Recall AR's explaining why dramatizing a moral code in a story is so much more effective in making that code's message real. People learn how to and not to proceed in their own lives by observing, analyzing, talking about, criticizing/praising the in-vivo actions of others.

Ellen

___

Ellen has some excellent points. An example from history: The "Great Schism" which separated the Christian church into the Latin and Orthodox branches in 1054 persists to this day - and not that many can articulate with a straight face what the theological issues were about (the filioque clause, indeed!), but there were real issues of authority (authority of the "bishop of Rome"). Time passing has not healed wounds and caused reunification.

I see little reason to suppose a similar reconciliation within Objectivism just because time passes.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Neil Parille]

To return briefly to a topic that's been discussed before, I don't see how Valliant can be so certain that no one else heard the Remington Rand story from Rand when, by his own admission, he didn't have access to the interviews.

A couple of years ago on my blog I mentioned that Alan Gotthelf in his 2000 book On Ayn Rand said Rand got her name from the typewriter and also that he checked all his facts with the Archives (explicitly stating that he checked the Archives whenever he used PAR).

This was Valliant's response:

Quote

I happen to know that there is absolutely no material at the "Ayn Rand Archives" able to support your implication here that Gotthelf HAD such material about Rand's name -- I had access to all of these same materials.

Just as in his Orange County speech there is no mention of any restrictions on his access. Dr. Gotthelf does not imply that the fact checking by the Archives was tentative because certain material was restricted. If Dr. Gotthelf was able to ask the Archives "please check x" why couldn't Valliant do the same, particularly since his project was supported by Dr. Peikoff?

This post has been edited by Neil Parille: 26 May 2008 - 08:25 AM

[Brant Gaede]

Daniel Barnes, on May 26 2008, 02:00 AM, said:

Brant Gaede, on May 25 2008, 11:34 PM, said:

Thanks for "Critical Rationalism," Daniel. I'll check it out, even though it sounds like form but no substance. It sorta sounds like Rand's Newton vrs its Einstein, with CR being the cosmological (speed of light) constant, while back on earth ....

Why not take a wander over to my friend Rafe's place, The Rathouse, some time? Or perhaps here? And remember, Einstein turned out to be closer to the truth than Newton...

Thx.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Brendan Hutching, on May 26 2008, 02:44 AM, said:

Brant Gaede, on May 26 2008, 12:06 AM, said:

We also need Ayn Rand for her celebration of human ability and achievement. We need her for the inspiration of her great novels. We owe her, too, we owe her a hell of a lot.

--Brant

Some people may "need" Ayn Rand for any number of reasons, but many people don't need her at all. And many people fail to find any inspiration in her novels. For those people, Rand offers very little.

In my view, whether or not Rand, or any other thinker or writer, inspires you depends very much on your aesthetic sense and temperament. Rand may well inspire some people, but she leaves many others cold.

In other words, it's highly doubtful that Rand, or anyone else for that matter, can 'save' Western civilisation or usher in a new Renaissance. Tastes differ, and no one person has all the answers or can inspire all people. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. A creative conversation needs many speakers, not a monologue.

Brendan

They need her. They just don't know it yet! Strap them down and pour the Castor Oil of Oism down their throats!!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Don't nearly 200 posts on this thread belie its title?

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

Brant,

I think PARC has become something of a "period piece," which says more about its time than about its content.

[Kat]

I have never taken PARC seriously because I saw it for what it was from the beginning... A smear campaign against the Brandens. I too hoped it would fade fast. A horrible injustice has been done against the Brandens, especially Barbara, and I am very pleased to see the good members of OL sifting through all the rhetoric and BS so that it does not do any more damage. Michael, Robert, Jordan and Neil have done a tremendous amount of research and should be applauded for their efforts.

Ayn Rand was not properly defended after the publication of Atlas and it hurt her deeply. Barbara needs our defense now. Barbara's book did not smear Ayn Rand, but Valliant's book certainly does. Ellen and Brant hit it spot on with many of their comments. The journals need to be released independently of PARC. It would have been nice if there was never a break, but what happened, happened, and you cannot shoot the messenger (Barbara) for exposing it. It would be nice, also, if we could all just rise above it all, unfortunately we can't. Garbage detail to do.


Kat

[Philip Coates]

> the sort of issue going on here is just the sort of issue which produced the big split in Islam and the various splits in Christianity. The argument over whether or not the Brandens -- especially Nathaniel Branden -- are to be viewed as demon figures...an expectation -- or at least hope -- such as Phil's that this Drama might eventually quit occupying attention, I think is historically naive. [Ellen]

Ellen, historically you are far less likely to find a central focus on personal splits and condemnations in the sciences. The difference is that the two historical examples you give are religions and those who spend inordinate time [you did notice in my post I didn't argue for zero time?] on the personalities topics are acting as if Objectivism is a religion and the purity of the major figures deserves more time than anything else - at least in their own lives.

> An example from history: The "Great Schism" which separated the Christian church into the Latin and Orthodox branches in 1054 persists to this day - and not that many can articulate with a straight face what the theological issues were about (the filioque clause, indeed!), but there were real issues of authority [Alfonso]

Ellen and Alfonso, the issue is not whether these issues will totally die, but whether they -should-. And what side of that you choose to be on. Shrug your shoulders and say "oh, well, people are going to argue it so I might as well keep posting"?

The historic religions are based on faith and don't have much of anything better to get excited and argue about. They don't have a whole philosophy of reason to argue for, and apply to all kinds of issues across the entire sphere of human experience.

> People learn how to and not to proceed in their own lives by observing, analyzing, talking about, criticizing/praising the in-vivo actions of others.

The lessons and points have already been made. Obsessing, repeating, demonizing -- the *manner* in which these threads are conducted and the *secondary* demonizing (of Barbara, NB, Valliant, MSK, Jim HN, etc.) hardly contributes to the "high-minded" goal which you, Robert, MSK, and others claim.

>Life is lived by individual people, not by abstract notions. It's through examining the details of what people do that learning occurs about principles in action. [Ellen]

First, it's the type of details and the level which are important. Romantic relationships and drinking problems are not more worthy of time and debate (and name-calling) compared to how AR's mind developed, her mental processes, her conclusions. Second, arguing over what certain individuals did long in the past is hardly the only way to the exclusion of applying the principles to politics, to philosophy of law, and to a host of other issues.

Finally, several of you claim that you are doing a public service by 'burying' your opponent, clearing someone's name. The very endless nature of this topic (as the above historic examples from Islam and other religions indicates) suggests that that will not be the case.

As does the following point about the influence of ideas as opposed to personalities:

***It's the Philosophy, Stupid!****

[Mike Hardy]

Ellen Stuttle, on May 26 2008, 03:00 AM, said:

Mike Hardy, on May 26 2008, 12:26 AM, said:

Ellen Stuttle, on May 25 2008, 04:04 PM, said:

I'm not going to assay a discussion of that topic on this thread, the subject of which is
___

Um. I'm too lazy right now to reach for the dictionary, three feet away, so I'm going to be reckless and go way out on a limb and propose that maybe you meant "essay"

http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/assay

See meaning #1.

[Darn; that link takes you to the meaning of the noun; you have to click on the verb entry to find the meaning #1 I mean.]

Quote

(Actually four respectable dictionaries sit there, one of which is a big two-volume thing with the most beautiful illustrations that belonged to my grandfather, the only medical doctor for miles around in a rural region of North Dakota...... geez, am I wandering?) [....]

PS: My grandfather did appendectomies in his house. But ignore this silly postscript.

My paternal grandfather was a horse-and-buggy doctor in a rural region of midstate Illinois. He did an appendectomy or several in his office, which was a separate building, maybe about 20 ft. squared, located about 10 feet away from his house. (I might be overestimating the size of the office; I'm remembering the dimensions from when I last saw it more than 40 years ago. Granddad Doc died in the late '60s -- age 99.)

Ellen

___

American Heritage College Dictionary, third edition, gives that meaning for "essay" as well, both as a noun and as a verb, and gives both pronunciations, but fails to say that the stress moves to the first syllable when it's a noun. Anyway, you should enjoy that Wikipedia article I linked to.

I see you duly ignored my silly postscript by writing one of your own on that topic; that's the best way to do it. My paternal grandfather, a rural physician in North Dakota, died when he was 67. He outlived both of his wives: my father's mother, and the much younger woman he married later with whom he had two children. (My mother's mother lived to be almost 100.) -- Mike Hardy

[Brant Gaede]

Brant Gaede, on May 25 2008, 05:57 PM, said:

Hi, Phil! I assume you posted this stuff on SOLOP too. (Didn't Linz tell you to take a hike a while back?)

Sorry Phil. I got you confused with James Heaps-Nelson. You are certainly much more entitled to your comments on this situation than he is. It seems many involved have a different version of Ayn Rand they are fighting for or is into a turf war. Maybe your attitude is a harbinger of a more benevolent, productive future. As for me, you won't find any forgiveness for Leonard Peikoff sitting on top of "Orthodox" Objectivism like a pig declaiming like some intellectual Stalinist authority on matters otherwise close to my interests and heart. Unfortunately, any time you take a shot at him it seems like you are letting Ayn Rand have it too. That's because he's got her strapped to the front of his Objectivism ARI fortress.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> Leonard Peikoff sitting on top...like a pig [Brant, twenty minutes ago]
> the Leonard Peikoff Institute [Robert, repeatedly]
> ...the weak-kneed appeasing tolerationist Objectivist Center [opponents of TAS]
> ...the rigid, dogmatic, 'orthodox' Objectivists [opponents of ARI]
> the evil, stupid, vicious, dishonest OL website [repeatedly]
> the evil, stupid, vicious, dishonest SoloP website [repeatedly]

These are one aspect of what I'm objecting to -- oversimplifying, personalizing, demonizing, failing to acknowledge any good or any value in one's opponents. The first two exaggerate LP or oversimplify the nature of ARI and omit any intellectual value the Peikoff lecture series or ARI have. The last four....well, I'll let the reader figure out for himself what is wrong/unfair/oversimplified with those adjectives.

And what is wrong with the groupthink failure to critique your *own allies* for using them.

On -both- sides of the various schisms.

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

I've given credit, where I believe it is due, not just to Leonard Peikoff but to others affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute. I recommend Tara Smith's book to non-Randians, for instance. Some other folks there are doing good work, too. A recent article by Keith Lockitch (in The Objective Standard) provides an excellent overview of Charles Darwin's achievement.

Remember, though, that nonARIans cite ARIan material, where relevant. The ARIans are the ones who don't want to cite nonARIan material. Note the asymmetry--it's part of a bad institutional culture.

I am also going to criticize Leonard Peikoff where he is off the beam. The Institute and its practices do bear his personal stamp, you know. They may have tried to slap a trademark on Ayn Rand's name, but their book catalog puts his section in front of Ayn Rand's.

Do you think that Dr. Peikoff's decision to sponsor Jim Valliant's book will go down in history as one his wiser decisions?

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Phil,

It doesn't matter if I call LP a "pig" or not; the Objectivism train doesn't go anywhere when he's at the throttle. And thanks to the ARI and the like it won't be going much anywhere after he's gone. As for TAS, I don't like it much either. I'll spare you the reasons.

I'd have forgiven LP's right-after-The-Break fascism if he had become more tolerant after the 1986 publication of The Passion of Ayn Rand, but he went off in the other direction. He had a chance then to get out from under. Too late now, in spades.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> I've given credit, where I believe it is due

Robert, to that extent then, you'd be less subject to my criticisms. I'm talking sociologically . . . about a broad trend on both sides by many, many people across a very long period of time.

> Do you think that Dr. Peikoff's decision to sponsor Jim Valliant's book will go down in history as one his wiser decisions?

Haven't read the book. (What's it about, wind-surfing?)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Philip Coates, on May 26 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

> the sort of issue going on here is just the sort of issue which produced the big split in Islam and the various splits in Christianity. The argument over whether or not the Brandens -- especially Nathaniel Branden -- are to be viewed as demon figures...an expectation -- or at least hope -- such as Phil's that this Drama might eventually quit occupying attention, I think is historically naive. [Ellen]

Ellen, historically you are far less likely to find a central focus on personal splits and condemnations in the sciences. The difference is that the two historical examples you give are religions [...].

Of course. The history of religion is the history to which Objectivism's history is most accurately compared. Objectivism is an attempt to offer a substitute situating-mythos to those historically provided by religious mythoi. AR was deliberately delivering a New Dispensation. Science can inform tales to live by, but it doesn't provide one of itself.

(My meaning of "mythos" here is pretty well expressed by this definition from Wiktionary (see):

"A story or set of stories relevant or having a significant truth or meaning for a particular culture, religion, society, or other group.")

Quote

and those who spend inordinate time [you did notice in my post I didn't argue for zero time?] on the personalities topics are acting as if Objectivism is a religion and the purity of the major figures deserves more time than anything else - at least in their own lives.

Do you notice that you're presuming your evaluation of what's ordinate or inordinate?

Quote

> An example from history: The "Great Schism" which separated the Christian church into the Latin and Orthodox branches in 1054 persists to this day - and not that many can articulate with a straight face what the theological issues were about (the filioque clause, indeed!), but there were real issues of authority [Alfonso]

Ellen and Alfonso, the issue is not whether these issues will totally die, but whether they -should-. And what side of that you choose to be on. Shrug your shoulders and say "oh, well, people are going to argue it so I might as well keep posting"?

That by no means expresses my point, or, I think, Bill's either.

Quote

The historic religions are based on faith and don't have much of anything better to get excited and argue about. They don't have a whole philosophy of reason to argue for, and apply to all kinds of issues across the entire sphere of human experience.

Phil, no one's stopping you. And you needn't even read these threads if you think they're such a waste. Same basic point to your comment about "the type of details and the level [...]." No one is stopping you from talking about the particulars you want to talk about. I can agree that some of the name-calling from the PARC panners is hardly if any better than that from the PARC praisers. However, I think that you haven't a prayer of stopping that kind of stuff and that to whatever extent you might have a prayer, a different method besides the preaching method you employ would be needed to achieve results.

A posting style question: Is there something which prevents you from using the "Reply" function so that the post to which you're replying is linked with the nice little click arrow so that it can easily be found by the reader?

Ellen

___

[Philip Coates]

> that nonARIans cite ARIan material, where relevant. The ARIans are the ones who don't want to cite nonARIan material. Note the asymmetry--it's part of a bad institutional culture. [Robert]

Would that all of these discussions were on this level - by you, by anyone: Yours is a good criticism, and an unanswerable one.

(Yes, I know the opponents will raise the foolish objection of 'sanction' -- as though Aristotle were 'sanctioning' Plato when he quoted what he criticized, as though Rand were 'sanctioning' the environmentalists when she rebutted them and footnoted them.)

[Philip Coates]

> A posting style question: Is there something which prevents you from using the "Reply" function so that the post to which you're replying is linked with the nice little click arrow so that it can easily be found by the reader? [Ellen]

Yes there is. I'm not usually only replying to one post or to one person. And I usually identify -exactly- what wider issues or aspects I want to address. When I am addressing a particular formulation, especially with long-winded or inept or fuzzy posters (not yourself), I use ellipsis to make the person's point stronger than in the original post and to give enough context for my discussion to be self-contained.

The method you suggest would 'tie' my reply to that person or that post in the mind of the reader in a tidy little package....exactly the kind of narrow, concrete-bound, tit-for-tat, picking-apart-a-sentence discussion that I object to here. If I cause the reader to step outside of a particular point-counterpoint posting style, then I'm forcing him outside of a comfort zone that too often involves limited thinking.

Also, the point I've 'clipped' - as in your case here - is usually within the last few posts. Either that or it stretches across decades and one shouldn’t be focusing only on just the exact way it was most recently stated.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Brant Gaede, on May 26 2008, 04:10 PM, said:

I'd have forgiven LP's right-after-The-Break fascism if he had become more tolerant after the 1986 publication of The Passion of Ayn Rand, but he went off in the other direction. He had a chance then to get out from under. Too late now, in spades.

I've heard via reports of persons, such as David Kelley, who were close associates of Leonard's in the years immediately following AR's death, and I read in an account of Robert Hessen's which was posted on the web somewhere back about the time of the BB/Hessen auction, that Leonard was interested in mending rifts (not with the Brandens, with others) and putting a stop to the denunciatory sort of stuff there for awhile -- and then Passion was published...

I'll repeat a comment I made earlier in the thread:

Ellen Stuttle, on May 24 2008, 02:23 AM, said:

And speaking of Leonard Peikoff, I just read a comment about him which is turning tumbrils. It's from a post by RC here:

Robert C. said:

[...] their panjandrum [Peikoff] needs to believe that all of his rivals for the succession were eliminated because they failed to meet Ayn Rand's standards. It's not as through anyone ever left or got the boot because Ayn Rand failed to meet their standards[.]

During the time between AR's breaking with the Brandens and Allan Blumenthal's breaking with Ayn, Leonard and Allan were co-heirs and executors. The subsequent history would have been quite different if Allan had stuck it out with Ayn to the end. I hadn't really thought much about, suppose Allan hadn't left.... I was so ecstatic when he did leave, I'd been so hoping he would -- and I think it was necessary for his integrity that he did. But suppose he hadn't. We wouldn't have had such an organization as ARI.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Philip Coates, on May 26 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

Finally, several of you claim that you are doing a public service by 'burying' your opponent, clearing someone's name.

Phil,

Who?

Several?

One will do. Could you please name one and back it up with a quote?

I think you are confused as to which forum you are on.

But just for the record, I checked. On OL, the word "bury" has been used in exactly 42 posts out of the 49,094 on the forum at this time. Of those 42 posts, 2 deal with PARC. The word bury in neither case refers to PARC or Valliant, but is used in another kind of meaning altogether.

Focus, man!

You are better than that.

Go ahead and criticize the behavior of people if that rings your ding-a-ling, but at least criticize them for the right stuff. Bitching qua bitching does not suit you. (And I confess, my reaction was "That's just Phil being Phil" and very little else on this round.) If you want to be taken seriously, get your facts right as a starting point. Otherwise, you shoot yourself in the eye.

(Anyone up for another analysis about the danger of using normative abstractions or feelings as fundamental axioms for their concepts? This manner of thinking almost always leads one to being factually wrong and, at best, having severe problems of accuracy and context-dropping. Things like facts, though, do not pale beside the certainty a person feels when he feels he is right, and are not even affected by the grandeur of the sentiment. It is wrong thinking to report them incorrectly or misrepresent them.)

My own claim is that the PARC controversy has stopped contaminating the rest of the Internet where Rand's ideas are discussed (I refer to the trolling we have all seen) and is mosty confined to here on OL and Siberia Passion. I have seen people speculate on OL that over time, PARC will become relegated to a footnote and not be taken seriously as a work of scholarship, but that's about as far is it has gone. I am seeing signs of that already (see the title of this thread as an indication of this theme). But I have seen no one say they want to bury Valliant, etc.

(I have seen that manner of rhetoric elsewhere, though. I wonder where? )

OK, I can't resist. Nobody has to say they want to bury Valliant, either. He doesn't need any help. He has done an admirable job of that himself. (Sorry. That was too well set up to resist.)

The truth is that if Valliant gets intellectually buried, it will be done on a one by one basis—individual choice by individuals. No one I know of on OL (in this discussion) is so out of contact with reality that they would claim credit for this.

As to clearing anyone's name goes, Barbara and Nathaniel have nothing to clear. Being smeared does not make one guilty of anything, with subsequent need to have one's name cleared. Cleared with whom? Do you think the Brandens need to clear their name with me? Certainly not. How about with ARI? Is her name ever going to be anything but mud at ARI?

So cleared for whom? There is nothing to clear.

What has been needed is a balance to the smears and trolling about PARC so people can make up their own minds. I and others on OL have provided that balance. And we have done so individually, not as a group. Not one person on OL during this whole ordeal has said, "Follow me! Lets band together and trounce the enemy!"

(I have seen that manner of rhetoric elsewhere, though. I wonder where? )

In fact, I am tired of seeing Nathaniel called a scumbag. (I won't even say what I feel about Barbara's case.) This crap is seen at times (infrequently) with good people who are out of focus at the moment. But, being good people, when you call them on it, they usually back off. I believe the vast majority are sincere, too. They were simply reiterating what they picked up from the general noise. But once their minds become engaged on the issue, they have immediately seen the folly of, say, comparing Nathaniel to a real-life rapist.

I happen to have lived among scumbags and, even at the time of the break, Nathaniel did not act like the scumbags I have known. On the contrary, without anyone asking him to, he went up in front of NBI and took full responsibility for having behaved wrongly.

Scumbags don't do things like that. Scumbags deny it till the end. They blame others. They steal from you. They whine it wasn't their fault. They hide and don't answer their phone. They do all kinds of vicious and/or cowardly things like that.

Nathaniel did not do any of that. Nor did Barbara.

Now there. Did I just now clear their names, or simply provide a balance? Do you think it likely the smearers are going to stop just because I wrote that?

Michael