[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 At any rate, Peikoff endorsed PARC enough to let Valliant use Rand's unpublished journal entries.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

[Philip Coates]

**clarity in thinking about one's own topics for and manner of discussion**

Winding up my comments on this topic, in reply to MSK, Robert, and others who have used this in lieu of point-by-point analysis, you can't argue by metaphor, like "taking out the garbage": You actually have to answer and fully address the original nine points I made - every one of them.

If you actually do that (not in a long-winded, vague, fuzzy, or rambling way, but with intellectual precision and tight definitions), even if it might take you an hour or so to step back think through, you will find I'm right and stop participating in these threads and find "higher-minded" - and more philosophical - topics to discuss.

In a world that is perishing for lack of philosophy.

---------

PS, note that my condemnation---of obsessive focusing on Personalities, Negatives, Enemies, Gossip---applies equally to all the pro-Valliant group on SP, as well as the anti-V group here. And it usually applies to BOTH SIDES in all the *historical* squabbles in the Objectivist movement which have focused too much on who-did-what-to-whom and who is 'dishonest' or a 'hero'.

It takes two to have an endless and pointless back-and-forth slandering feces-hurling contest.

PPS, note also that it is NOT an argument that one shouldn't study how people apply ideas in their lives, as Ellen over-simplifies and "strawmans" my view. It's about:

i) how it's done,
ii) how much time is spent,
iii) the level,
iv) what issues are -excluded- since time is not unlimited for intellectual writing and posting.

PPS, MSK, Am I going to 'name names' or cite specific posts? Or make my long posts even longer and provide "footnotes". No, my level of detail was already clear . . . you and every other reader already know exactly what I'm talking about and when the shoe fits yourself or when the shoe fits Mr. V or Peikoff or whoever.

.......

Michael, let me explain something: You are **already** wasting too much time and detail on this. And you were over a year and about a gazillion posts ago. As is Valliant, Parille, Ellen, Perigo . . . and all the others down the decades of endless squabbling. Asking me to join you in obsessive-compulsiveness is even sillier.

[Laure]

"What has been needed is a balance to the smears and trolling about PARC so people can make up their own minds."

Michael, people can make up their own minds without your help.

"In fact, I am tired of seeing Nathaniel called a scumbag."

By your definition, he wasn't a scumbag because he didn't continue to deny everything AFTER he got caught? Like Gov. McGreevey or Elliot Spitzer? Not scumbags? I'm not questioning that you've known worse scumbags, but that's not the point.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if you and Linz are in cahoots to increase traffic on your sites with this topic.

*edit* Phil, please stop me, I can't help myself, Someone is Wrong on the Internet!

This post has been edited by Laure: 26 May 2008 - 07:24 PM

[Philip Coates]

> Phil, please stop me, I can't help myself, Someone is Wrong on the Internet! [Laure]

WHAAAT ??!!

Where?

Let me at him!!!!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Sorry, dude. Please feel free to sound off on this forum, even about me, but I am not going to take you very seriously for a variety of reasons—the main one being that it does not serve my values.

But the other is that I do not agree with your evaluations and method. You asked for precise definitions. Hell, they are all over the forum. Just read. But for the record, my main concern is about definitions and to call attention to when people use evaluations or emotions as the cognitive premises of their concepts. People mouth the phrase cognitive and normative and say they know the difference, but I see this error constantly committed by the same people. This has gone on in Objectivism for far too long and it causes people to get all kinds of facts wrong. I have cited several instances with various people.

If you are willing to engage in some of those analyses, like, specifically, the criticism of your position I gave in my last post, I will be more than glad to answer your issues point by point and highlight exactly where I think your premise is an evaluation and not a simple observation as it should be (with evaluation coming later). And I will be more than glad to be corrected if I am wrong.

Otherwise, do carry on. I have other stuff to do.

Laure, on May 26 2008, 08:15 PM, said:

Michael, people can make up their own minds without your help.

Laure,

My help? I said I offer balance, not help. People can read it if they want to. My thing ain't mind-control, but instead tearing the covers off of mind-control and letting people see it. A devastating body of content is growing about PARC and I fully intend to see that it grows more.

People come here. I don't go there. If they come here, it is because, hmmm... do you think it's maybe they want the balance I and others provide? Nobody forces them to come. Sorry if you don't like their exercise of free will.

Here on OL, according to Objectivism, I can do whatever I like. Or do you have a different view of property rights? When I started, those PARC boneheads were trolling the entire Internet wherever the name Branden was mentioned and I said there would be one place the trolls would not be allowed to troll. Well, the entire Internet has dried up for them and this one little place continues to be one little place. Except it grew. Big bad us, huh?

As to the Nathaniel issue, I refuse to be taught the hatred of anybody. The guy screwed up big time and atoned for it. Then he lived an honorable life of high achievment and productivity. That's more than good enough in my book. Others want me to hate that. I won't. In fact, I denounce such hatred as the evil it is.

Nathaniel's example is something to aspire to if you ever screw up in life. It is an inspiration of what could and should be. I think Nathaniel Branden is good people and I am more than honored to know him.

Finally, on the charge that I am in cahoots with Perigo about anything, for once you leave me speechless (almost). Your hypothesis wouldn't be possible even in Kant's noumenal dimension. That's probably the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.



(btw - This kind of traffic increase is known as garbage traffic. People don't buy anything or contribute anything and the surges go away after the dust settles. I place very little value on it.)

Michael

[Mike Hardy]

Bill P, on May 26 2008, 04:53 AM, said:

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").

That "authority" issue was also "theological", in that Roman Catholics hold as a matter of religious dogma that God intended one bishop to have authority over all Christians. And it's also a substantial political issue. So there's no problem articulating the theological issue that was also a political issue. -- Mike Hardy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Philip Coates, on May 26 2008, 08:13 PM, said:

Asking me to join you in obsessive-compulsiveness is even sillier.

Phil,

For the record, I don't recall ever asking you to join me in my silly obsessive-compulsiveness.

But, hey! Wanna rock 'n roll?



Michael

[Philip Coates]

**mission accomplished!! - total victory across the internet!!**

The pro-Jim V people constantly say they have won, no one listens to MSK or his side.

Now in a tit-for-tat, with no appreciation for the irony, MSK and others here -- in pure imitation -- sink to that *identical rhetorical level*: "NOBODY takes PARC /Jim V/ Linz seriously".

We have proven everything? Answered all questions? REAALLLY??

This is simple hyperbole, shameful rhetorical exaggeration by MSK etc. with the "taking out the garbage - we're winning - no one takes XXX seriously" ploy.

But lots of people agree with the other side and dismiss every single argument. SP is full of them and so is NoodleFood. So you seem to be simply in denial on this point.

Nor will you guys stop. On either side. Even though you have both essentially declared the victory of complete discrediting. Even -after- your supposed complete victory, I predict you, Jim Valliant, Lindsay Perigo, Casey Fahy and others, will fall silent for a few months. Then somehow still "fire up the cannons" about the latest tidbit or claim. And make dozens or hundreds more posts across a span of years. And even create NEW THREADS for the purpose, as has been done here..)

The last few years have proved that no one is about to let anyone else have the last word, the last bit of venom, the last bitter denunciation in the tank.

Each accusation of cultism or spinelessness or dishonesty will be trumped by a counter-blast.

"And you're another!!"

At the ARRH Ayn Rand Retirement Home in Boca Raton thirty years from now, you will be ramming your wheelchairs into and caning each other and saying,

"And one final point, you scumbag....."

[Ellen Stuttle]

Philip Coates, on May 26 2008, 09:13 PM, said:

**clarity in thinking about one's own topics for and manner of discussion**

Winding up my comments on this topic, in reply to MSK, Robert, and others who have used this in lieu of point-by-point analysis, you can't argue by metaphor, like "taking out the garbage": You actually have to answer and fully address the original nine points I made - every one of them.

Phil,

No, we don't have to. We don't have to reply to you at all. Frankly, I consider your nine points poorly presented -- a sort of grab-bag which for one thing doesn't indicate that you've bothered to read the discussions you criticize. (You've said that you haven't read any of the sources being talked about; I see no clear sign that you've even read the discussions.) For another thing, I see your complaints in toto as yet another instance of a typical theme-song complaint of yours: people spending time on subjects you don't want them to be spending time on. OK, you disapprove. Noted.

Quote

PPS, note also that it is NOT an argument that one shouldn't study how people apply ideas in their lives, as Ellen over-simplifies and "strawmans" my view.

As to that charge, something which I feel would indeed be a waste of my time is arguing with you about exactly what your view is and whether or not I strawmaningly over-simplified it. I addressed the few details of it I found interesting enough to address. As to the rest, I'm not interested, Phil.

Ellen

PS: On some issues, Phil, I consider you no better than a troll.

___

This post has been edited by Ellen Stuttle: 26 May 2008 - 10:08 PM

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, I don't know Phil. It will all probably die down after Valliant stops putting up chapters of PARC on SOLOP.

I've never seen anyone on the Internet who gets so peeved at others not doing it his way. Seriously, you might emulate Harry Binswanger and his HBL with your own and make some money too boot.

--Brant

This post has been edited by Brant Gaede: 26 May 2008 - 10:59 PM

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Philip Coates, on May 26 2008, 11:02 PM, said:

Nor will you guys stop.

Nope.

Nor will you.

These are called timeless values.



Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen Stuttle, on May 26 2008, 11:06 PM, said:

Frankly, I consider your nine points poorly presented -- a sort of grab-bag which for one thing doesn't indicate that you've bothered to read the discussions you criticize. (You've said that you haven't read any of the sources being talked about; I see no clear sign that you've even read the discussions.)

Ellen,

I have the same impression. (Not just with that list, either.) And, to keep beating this poor horse of mine, it is symptomatic of one who builds a logical structure (like a concept, but also a set of arguments) over an emotional or normative premise. Who needs facts when the core concept is an evaluation? Once you have your premise, you can deduce everything else. But this is backwards. You need to know what something is before judging it. Many Objectivists (including Phil here) think you don't. And I could not disagree more.

In Phil's case, his normative conclusion (something to the effect that it is bad to discuss PARC and schism-stuff and all people do so are engaged in meaningless hostilities) is placed at the beginning as some kind of absolute (similar to a fundamental axiom). Then he deduces a bunch of stuff based on some pick-here-pick-there observations. After that, if he sees a mere signal of acrimony and PARC is in the vicinity, he has a logical structure in place as grounds for elaborating some objections.

So who needs to read the material? That's called getting facts. But getting facts is boring, especially to a world-class Objectivist who already got all his answers from Rand years ago. Those facts don't compute with his normative premise anyway. So to hell facts. To hell with reading the material.

Everybody knows that it is a lot more fun to criticize when you don't know a bloody thing about what you are criticizing if you can pull it off and make it sound halfway decent. (On this last point, Phil fizzles often, but I admire his tenacity.)

I don't think Phil is a troll. Phil is just being Phil. This attitude of "I can scold others, but I am proud because I don't know jack and I don't need to know jack" thing seems to be the only dog and pony show he's got. The pattern I have seen is that he waits until there is enough audience somewhere, then trots out the same old dogs and ponies one more time before taking a bow.

Those poor critters are not aging well, are they? They just don't get much applause any more. Maybe that's what's making Phil grumpy.



Michael

[Dragonfly]

Perhaps we should start a new thread: "Why Nobody Takes Philip Coates Seriously Anymore".

[Daniel Barnes]

Ellen Stuttle, on May 26 2008, 02:53 AM, said:

Ironically, however, PARC itself would lead most academics to think that the O'ist world truly is a crazy-cult enclave and that AR was a dimwit.

Quote Of The Week.

Ellen Stuttle, on May 26 2008, 02:53 AM, said:

(Of course Valliant wouldn't describe what's been happening as his being shredded.)

"He doesn't know when he's beaten, that boy...he doesn't know when he's winning either...He has no form of sensory apparatus known to man..." - Monty Python.

[Ellen Stuttle]

A post for the record, since a particular comment that I made, and a similar comment by MSK, followed by one by Dragonfly, have been made inaccurate much of by Linz.

In Philian style, I might title this:

***Much Ado over Misreporting***



Here is Linz's most recent misreport of the comments to which I refer:

Quote

[...] when a lynch-mob on O-Lying calls me Arafat and Hitler and the like and demands my removal from the speaker list [...].

I don't for a minute believe that Linz himself cares a damn about the accuracy of his reporting. If he did care, why would he keep reiterating his description of those here who objected to his being invited to talk at TAS as a "lynch-mob" acting under Barbara's direction? However, there might be those SOLOists reading this thread who genuinely care about accuracy.

I'll preface by stating what my own objection -- note, my particular objection, which might have overlapped but was not identical to anyone else's objection -- to the Linz invited talks was and was not.

I did NOT object to the very idea of Linz's being invited to talk at TAS, depending on the subject. For instance, suppose he'd been asked to present an invited talk on New Zealand politics. I wouldn't have objected. Nor would I have objected to his giving a contributed talk on either of the topics he chose.

Reminding people, the topics he chose were:

1) "Why Romantic Music Is Objectively Superior (and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron)";

(2) "Objectivism's Worst Enemy: Objectivists."

(He subsequently presented on SOLO a version of what he inteded to sayabout music: see. I'd expect leading persons at TAS who know something about music to feel relieved they were spared endorsing something along those lines as an invited talk.)

I objected to ANYONE whomsoever being invited to talk on the music topic -- on bases quite similar to those on which James Heaps-Nelson, and I, and others, objected to George Marklin's being invited in 1999 to give a talk arguing for ether theory. This was a stated subject which I and others -- very much including James Heaps-Nelson, who stomped loudly out of the room soon after Marklin began speaking -- thought shouldn't have been given with official endorsement. I nevertheless wouldn't have objected to its being given as a contributed talk, just as I wouldn't have objected to Linz's music talk being given as a contributed talk.

Nor would I have objected to Linz in particular giving a contributed talk on the second subject. However, it was in regard to Linz's being asked to give an invited talk on this subject that I made the Arafat comparison which Linz chronically repeats sans context. Incidentally, I sort of set Linz up by making the comparison, since I figured he'd do just what he's done with repeating the description eliminating the context and the exact wording.

Here is the exact wording of the particular paragraph, which was the last paragraph in a fairly long post. (I repeat the entire post separately as a reference.):

Ellen Stuttle, on Jan 5 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

(Re Perigo's second talk, I repeat, that's analogous to sponsoring Victor Pross giving a presentation on how to write; the sheer idea of Lindsay Perigo of all people discoursing on "Objectivism's Worst Enemy: Objectivists"...reminds me of Arafat being awarded the Peace Prize; admittedly, it's not that degree of offense, but I think it is the same type of offense.)

The Hitler reference is likewise being misrepresented. The way that came up was through none other than Phil Coates' having hypothesized that :

Philip Coates, on Jan 5 2008, 04:28 PM, said:

[Linz] was selected, I strongly suspect, more like a motivational speaker, to be "a draw" and rally the troops.

Giving Phil his full just due, the post in which he made this suggestion was one of his which I considered thoughtful and worth a better reply than a quip in return. Nonetheless, the Hitler reference subsequently made by MSK was no more than a comparison objecting to the motivational-speaker basis for inviting someone:

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Jan 5 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

Phil,

I appreciate your effort, but I agree with Wolf. Rallying the troops is not enough. I don't see this as a good stand-alone reason.

For example, Adolf Hitler gave good motivational speeches. Hugo Chaves gives good motivational speeches. Should TAS invite Chaves? He certainly would be a draw. Guaranteed sell-out.

(Hey! This last was a great unintended double entendre: sell-out ticket-wise and sell-out intellectually.)



Michael

To which Dragonfly added:

Dragonfly, on Jan 5 2008, 08:33 PM, said:

Michael Stuart Kelly, on Jan 6 2008, 03:21 AM, said:

For example, Adolf Hitler gave good motivational speeches.

And don't forget Goebbels, who was also a master orator.

In other words, NO ONE was saying that Linz is a "Hitler" or a "Goebbels"? Linz??? Get real; he doesn't begin to have the access to power of either of those two. The comparison being made was to considering oratory skill alone a plus.

Ellen

(See the next post for the full original Arafat reference.)

___

This post has been edited by Ellen Stuttle: 27 May 2008 - 03:56 AM

[Ellen Stuttle]

Original source, addendum to #214:

Full text of the post which contains my Arafat comparison:

Ellen Stuttle, on Jan 5 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

James Heaps-Nelson, on Jan 4 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

It's funny, I had my own moment where then TOC tripped my anger trigger (and Ellen was arguing that I was offbase that time and she was probably right) and I didn't attend for awhile.

Jim,

Let's be clear on what I told you:

(1) Rather amusedly, I told you that you'd stomped out of the lecture too soon. (Your exit was noticeable, hence the "stomped"; it was toward the beginning.) Had you stuck around, you'd have heard David Ross's blistering summing up, and then Larry's quiet-toned commentary (;-)), also Larry's own talk that evening (which I think you missed).

(2) I believe I indicated that I thought you'd written TOC off too soon, with your decision not to attend for a few subsequent years.

However, I think you were right in objecting to TOC's having put that lecture on their formal agenda to begin with. Their having done so was symptomatic of lack of knowledge of "what's what" in physics and of beguilement, on the part of people without the expertise to assess, by the "20th-century physics must be corrupt" attitude (now coming to full fruition with Harriman's offerings).

Quote

It's funny that people are making TAS up to be composed of these personality issues.

I think that that is so imprecise a view of what's involved here as to be ludicrous.

I notice your saying in a further comment that you're looking forward to Perigo's aesthetics talk. Do you have any idea what his attitude on aesthetics is? Have you ever read his...harrangues, how else can one describe them?...on the subject? For TAS to sponsor a presentation by him on issues of art is a reversion to the bad old days when people were raked over the coals for discrepant tastes from "approved" art; it's reversion to all that was worst in the Objectivist scene when AR was alive. And Ed Hudgins at least ought to know better.

(Re Perigo's second talk, I repeat, that's analogous to sponsoring Victor Pross giving a presentation on how to write; the sheer idea of Lindsay Perigo of all people discoursing on "Objectivism's Worst Enemy: Objectivists"...reminds me of Arafat being awarded the Peace Prize; admittedly, it's not that degree of offense, but I think it is the same type of offense.)

Ellen

___

[Bill P]

Mike Hardy, on May 27 2008, 10:58 AM, said:

Bill P, on May 26 2008, 04:53 AM, said:

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").

That "authority" issue was also "theological", in that Roman Catholics hold as a matter of religious dogma that God intended one bishop to have authority over all Christians. And it's also a substantial political issue. So there's no problem articulating the theological issue that was also a political issue. -- Mike Hardy

Well, the authority of the BIshop of Rome (to which I did allude above) was reallyh a political/power/authority issue. The "theological argument" which emanated from Rome on the subject was just a flimsy pretext for a power grab. That issue was really not about theology - it was about who was in charge.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Question: If Nathaniel really had the psychology James Valliant says he had, then why couldn't he carry off the performance?

Ellen

___

[John Dailey]

~ After reading these 11 pages of a single thread covering the same 'personality' (Rand, Branden, Perigno, Peikoff, and any and all 'supporters' of whichever) issues (called 'garbage-detail'...here) which have been gossiply over-covered in this forum's other threads (as well as within SOLO-P) and other fora, I think there should be a sequel thread called:

"REPLYING TO WHY NO ONE TAKES 'OBJECTIVISM' SERIOUSLY...AT ALL." --- and link back to this thread's beginning.

~ Anyone who's read AS or FH and pops into these threads will see the predominantly discussed subjects being a chronic E!-oriented personality dissecting, pro-and-con, (starting with, though clearly not limited to, Rand) and find relatively quite less re her philosophy's 'gaps', nothing about 'where to go from here', and depending on the fora, lots about where her philosophy's lacking (with no pointing to how to 'improve' it.)

LLAP
J:D

[John Dailey]

~ For those familiar with my past posts on all this, obviously I'm with Phil and Laure on this whole thing. It's all interesting 'reading' for us National Enquirer readers but, the content's as substantial as emptying out ash trays with 1 butt in them. --- In short, at this point, most criticizers (most especially those who criticize our criticism of them) are wasting their time, and especially intellectual energies and foci, anal-yzing every little comment by disagreers, just because they posted a disagreement.

~ There are more worthwhile things to learn from others about on O'ism...besides trying to out-Randroid Randroids.

LLAP
J:D

This post has been edited by John Dailey: 27 May 2008 - 06:23 PM

[Roger Bissell]

John Dailey, on May 27 2008, 05:15 PM, said:

"REPLYING TO WHY NO ONE TAKES 'OBJECTIVISM' SERIOUSLY...AT ALL." --- and link back to this thread's beginning.

~ Anyone who's read AS or FH and pops into these threads will see the predominantly discussed subjects being a chronic E!-oriented personality dissecting, pro-and-con, (starting with, though clearly not limited to, Rand) and find relatively quite less re her philosophy's 'gaps', nothing about 'where to go from here', and depending on the fora, lots about where her philosophy's lacking (with no pointing to how to 'improve' it.)

LLAP
J:D

John, the underscored points in your comments above, are precisely where I have put 95+% of my effort over the years. My JARS essays -- including my Fall 2007 and Fall 2008 (forthcoming) essays on "the objective" and philosophy of mind-body, as well as my big essays on art and music several years ago -- are where I'm presenting my case. I have tried to share some of that thinking here, but interest inevitably gets diverted over to the very kinds of lurid tabloid stuff and pointless griping and personal attacks (mostly hurled in this direction) you are rightly fed up with.

We do what we can -- or, apparently, merely what we can't not do, in some cases. Since it probably isn't going to change, despite your well-intentioned pleas, my advice is that you take what you like, and leave the rest....

REB