Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

I'll have to look it up, if you want a page reference in PARC.

But Rand had a long-standing habit of drafting and rewriting major journal entries, and there are occasional references in PARC to one entry being a sketch or preliminary version of another.

I'm not recalling such a reference -- which doesn't mean there isn't one.

Isn't the big entry from early July 1968 prefaced with an outline?

No. It lists a series of points, the first 8 of which are fairly brief and might look like an outline, the 9th of which -- "Conclusions" -- is very long.

Ellen

EDIT: Oops, you're right. Valliant does refer to an outline of that entry.

He says on pg. 310

PARC, pg. 310

July 3 was also a day of "discussion," as we will see, and on July 4, Rand returned to her journal to write the single longest piece in this collection of notes, a clear response to his "paper" so extensive that Rand first separately outlined her thoughts. This outline is so perfectly recapitulated within the text that it is not reproduced here.

It was written with unusual care and depth in comparison to the other entries, and, it seems, Rand intended this to be read by others, such as the Brandens and, perhaps, Allan Blumenthal, the psychiatrist and friend whom the notes confirm Rand had brought into the situation at this time.

___

Edited May 24, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Mike Hardy]

(Both Allan B. and Alan G., of course, later revoked the irrevocable in Barbara's case -- and I think Alan G. had subsequent contact with Nathaniel as well.)

Ellen, I hadn't heard about Alan Gotthelf having contact with either BB or NB. ("G" is "Gotthelf", isn't it?) So what happened? -- Mike Hardy

[Ellen Stuttle]

Daniel links to:

this memorable encounter over at Richard Dawkins site [...].

Unfortunately, after that exchange had finished (except for a couple later stray comments), the Dawkins-site server crashed and when the site was brought back up, formatting had been lost on previous posts. The thread is now hard to follow with special-character gibberish obfuscating the flow.

Ellen

___

Speaking of the Dawkins-site encounter,

Here is a direct link to about the place JV showed up in the thread;

Here is JV's description (posted on SOLO today) of what happened:

Also, while I did call you [Robert Campbell] a "troll," this was no mere insult, but a description of your conduct at RichardDawkins.net. I was there happily discussing free will and determinism -- the substance of Rand's ideas -- when you and the "usual suspects," as Mr. Scherk called them, decided to make the issue me. I tried to stay on topic, but the focus on PARC -- at what you describe as a "neutral" forum -- became a complete distraction to any serious engagement. As I have said, that is why I left. (And I am still waiting for that "empirical" argument for determinism, btw.) The decision by y'all to turn a substantive conversation into an attack on me (and my book about Rand biographies) became a kind of ad hominem against Rand's case.

Attacking me was apparently more important than the explication of Rand's ideas in such a context to some -- since who was making the case, not the case being made, had become the relentless new focus for some.

If this is the kind of thing you enjoy crowing about -- go for it. (And I'm supposed to be the one who declares his own "victories"?)

But this is the conduct of those often termed internet "trolls."

Hard though the Dawkins thread is to follow now, with the interspersed gibberish-symbols, I recommend that JV re-read it if he wants to understand what happened to him in the determinism discussion.

Laughing.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

(Both Allan B. and Alan G., of course, later revoked the irrevocable in Barbara's case -- and I think Alan G. had subsequent contact with Nathaniel as well.)

Ellen, I hadn't heard about Alan Gotthelf having contact with either BB or NB. ("G" is "Gotthelf", isn't it?) So what happened? -- Mike Hardy

No, dear. "G" is Greenspan, one of the signatories to "For the Record," the text of which is quoted and the signatories to which are listed in the post to which you replied. And Gotthelf's first name I believe is spelled "Allan," not "Alan."

Duh.

LNS

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

This quote deserves to be emblazoned somewhere. It was addressed to Mr. Cathcart, but there are lots of people in lots of circumstances to whom it might deservedly be addressed:

Once again you express total subjective certainty about matters of which you objectively know absolutely nothing.

---

[Brant Gaede]

James Heaps-Nelson writes (see):

Robert, if I was around in 1968, I would not have signed the statement that Peikoff, Blumenthal, Sures and Greenspan signed. They didn't have evidence and they certainly didn't know all the circumstances.

Again (I've drawn attention to this two or three times before), Allan Blumenthal was in a different knowledge category from the other three. He, unlike the others, knew particulars. Nathaniel had been sent for some therapy sessions with Allan prior to the break, and Allan was there at the final scene.

Even given that he had background information the others lacked, I think that Allan B., along with the other three, is to be faulted for signing an irrevocable condemnation and repudiation. The wording of the statement makes it one which I wouldn't have signed however much I knew about the details. Nonetheless, on the grounds of his greater awareness of what was involved, I think that Allan is less to be faulted than the others.

AR, on the other hand, I think is to be faulted for any part she played in the wording of the "irrevocably" clause (even if her part was just that of accepting the wording), and for permitting a statement with that clause to appear in a magazine under her aegis.

(Both Allan B. and Alan G., of course, later revoked the irrevocable in Barbara's case -- and I think Alan G. had subsequent contact with Nathaniel as well.)

Here, again, for the record is the wording of "For the Record":

The Objectivist

Volume 7, Number 5

May 1968, pg. 9

FOR THE RECORD

September, 1968

We, the undersigned, former Associate Lecturers at Nathaniel Branden Institute, wish the following to be on record: Because Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, in a series of actions, have betrayed fundamental principles of Objectivism, we condemn and repudiate these two persons irrevocably, and have terminated all association with them and with Nathaniel Branden Institute.

Allan Blumenthal

Alan Greenspan

Leonard Peikoff

Mary Ann (Rukavina) Sures

J H-Nelson cannot begin to understand what he would or would not have done if he had been "around in 1968" and had been right up into that situation, not even known what "Students of Objectivism" had gone through. His ignorance is grossly offensive because he presents himself as an heroic ex post facto authority. Even though he can't be but ignorant he should know what he really doesn't know. They can all be excused, even Peikoff. Peikoff cannot be excused for his subsequent behavior, especially after 1986. I am not talking about his alienation from the Brandens. I am talking about his refusing, finally, to get out from under the dead thumb of Ayn Rand and be his own man and not be some phoney Objectivism authority figure. To be a true philosopher and not an Ayn Rand philosopher.

I suspect that statement was drawn up by her lawyer, Henry Mark Holzer. I suspect Peikoff went around gathering the signatures. I suspect. I do not know.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

I suspect that statement was drawn up by her lawyer, Henry Mark Holzer. I suspect Peikoff went around gathering the signatures. I suspect. I do not know.

I, too, suspect that Holzer is the one who wrote the wording. Whoever got the signatures, though, Peikoff or AR herself, she knew what the wording was, and I repeat that I think she's "to be faulted for any part she played in the wording of the 'irrevocably' clause (even if her part was just that of accepting the wording), and for permitting a statement with that clause to appear in a magazine under her aegis."

==

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

[...] 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

___

[Brant Gaede]

What needs to be remembered in regard to these signatures is that Nathaniel Branden acknowledged substantial guilt prior to "To Whom It May Concern." It didn't leave much wiggle room.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

What needs to be remembered in regard to these signatures is that Nathaniel Branden acknowledged substantial guilt prior to "To Whom It May Concern." It didn't leave much wiggle room.

--Brant

I would nevertheless not have signed something irrevocably condemning and repudiating. Doing so even contradicts the O'ist theory of free will and of moral judgment *. And AR's not seeing this I take as indicative of her degree of blindedness from anger at that time.

Ellen

* I don't myself subscribe precisely to that theory, but AR subscribed to it.

___

[Brant Gaede]

What needs to be remembered in regard to these signatures is that Nathaniel Branden acknowledged substantial guilt prior to "To Whom It May Concern." It didn't leave much wiggle room.

--Brant

I would nevertheless not have signed something irrevocably condemning and repudiating. Doing so even contradicts the O'ist theory of free will and of moral judgment *. And AR's not seeing this I take as indicative of her degree of blindedness from anger at that time.

Ellen

* I don't myself subscribe precisely to that theory, but AR subscribed to it.

If I had been involved with those people in '68 the way they were with each other I would have insisted on speaking with Nathaniel. That would have gotten me kicked out. That's the way my psychology would have dictated my actions then. But this would not have been a great credit to me for it would have been a quirk in the situation--that is, who would have asked me to sign? Only Rand herself would have served my conceit. Rand wouldn't have asked. I doubt she asked anyone. (I do not know!) I had an inflated view of myself. The irony is I was actually blind to my virtues. I now think that at the psychological base the Objectivist movement in the 60s was an indulgence in a pseudo self-esteem carried on today by people who find afinity and ID in an "Ayn Rand Institute."

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just got through reading the recent exchanges between Robert Campbell and the ever-dwindling number of participants in the debate on Solo Passion and I am fascinated at the example unfolding before me of people who actually live by the creed of emotions as cognitive axioms, but building a rational (in the cognitive sense) edifice over that premise. The concepts are rationally deduced and integrated, but the underlying premise is an emotion—an evaluation. This is very similar to a religious person who starts with God.

Ellen enjoyed Robert's comment to a poster over there about having subjective certainty about objectively unknown issues, and it was well worth appreciating as a bon mot, but there was part of that post in contrast to the most recent statements by Valliant that illustrates in concrete terms the blindness of those who use emotions as axioms. Look at the contrast. Valliant talking about Robert:

No, the seeming need on display here is the need to tear down Rand.

. . .

But I also know from first-hand experience that there are some who have a "psychological need" to tear down men of achievement.

This seems to be more in play, right now.

(The following quote was added as an edit since it happened right as my post was being made. It continues the same theme and is likewise addressed to Robert.)

Or, are you seeking the reassurance that Rand was really a rotten person?

The first post was made about 4 hours according to the time stamps after Robert's statement below (and the second quote shortly thereafter). It is reasonable to assume that Valliant read Robert's statement since, from Valliant's comments, he is reading everything on this thread. The post below is Robert addressing a poster named Cathcart after mentioning a genuine achievement by him:

Do you really want to become known as a reliable provider of mindless applause?

What kind of ambition in life is that?

Now this guy Cathcart has called Robert just about every vile name in the book and always uses metaphors like "frothing at the mouth" and so forth to characterize him, yet Robert here reached out to the best within this child and rebuked him for wasting a good mind on garbage. What, but love for the best within man, motivates this? It takes one hell of a moral person to wipes the spittle off his face and say, "Shame on you. You have better within you." The normal reaction is to spit back.

It also takes a special kind of blindness not to see it. Regardless of how reasonable Valliant will receive a criticism of Ayn Rand, after he mulls it over and if the person does not reverse the criticism or turn himself into a logical pretzel or show insecurity, he will inevitably gravitate to the love-hate Rand dichotomy as an axiom and accuse the person of trying to tear her down. It is reflex.

I know he is aware that Robert does not want to tear down Rand, but instead his target is the dogmatists who have surrounded her and infested Objectivism, but he just can't believe it at root. I don't think that is consciously chosen malice, either. I think he literally does not see that there is another way of living and valuing that excludes feelings about Rand as a premise. The following comment is incidental to my point, but this other way of living and valuing is far more heroic than anything he could ever imagine. It is a life and vision based on achievement and encouraging this in others.

What has Valliant ever encouraged in others? I mean one on one, in concrete terms, like Robert did with that boy? Hatred, that's what.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Note to Robert,

I know I should say something about Chris Sciabarra, but I simply can't take those boneheads who are bashing him seriously. Chris is a high achiever in life and I start laughting when I read the boneheads talking about dishonesty.

Seriously.

The best I can do is stare in wonder.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Speaking of the Dawkins-site encounter,

Here is a direct link to about the place JV showed up in the thread;

Actually he showed up slightly earlier, here, shaking his cap and bells in the direction of the dear old "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature." When challenged re ARCHN he then launched into a hilariously confused discussion of how his subjective introspections constituted scientific proof, and how social systems that have never existed can nonetheless have overwhelming "empirical" support. Truly: the man cannot argue for toffee.

Here is JV's description (posted on SOLO today) of what happened:

James Valliant:Also, while I did call you [Robert Campbell] a "troll," this was no mere insult, but a description of your conduct at RichardDawkins.net. I was there happily discussing free will and determinism -- the substance of Rand's ideas -- when you and the "usual suspects," as Mr. Scherk called them, decided to make the issue me. I tried to stay on topic, but the focus on PARC -- at what you describe as a "neutral" forum -- became a complete distraction to any serious engagement. As I have said, that is why I left.

Priceless. Actually first he promised his personal critique of ARCHN, which he claimed he'd read, then he piked out on doing so. Along the way he got schooled in Determinism 101 by various parties, and what constitutes a typical empirical scientific standard, though it seems not much took even at a basic level. Then he got caught out fibbing about all the so-called famous scientists he claimed were influenced by Rand. And then he mysteriously evaporated. That's the way it went down.

Laughing.

Oh yes. He's welcome back any time...;-)

Edited May 24, 2008 by Daniel Barnes

[Neil Parille]

Valliant even said:

To understand Rand's thought, one needs to consider the work of some philosophers, academics and scholars who have truly never been addressed, much less refuted -- work explicating and defending Rand's thought. Just a few of these writers are:

Andrew Bernstein, PhD, author of The Capitalist Manifesto;

Robert Mayhew, PhD, editor of Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living and Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem;

Tara Smith, PhD, most recently, the author of Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: the Virtuous Egoist (2006, Cambridge University Press), but all her books and essays are recommended;

Allan Gotthelf, PhD, one of the world's foremost scholars of Aristotle (who Darwin admired so much), for his many works on both Aristotle and Rand;

Harry Binswanger, PhD, author of The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts (from his Columbia PhD dissertation, but all his works are recommended);

George Smith, author of Atheism: the Case Against God;

David Kelley, PhD, author of The Evidence of the Senses (based on his Princeton PhD dissertation), as well as essays and books on abstraction and logic;

Edwin Locke, PhD, pioneering psychological theorist, emeritus professor and elected fellow of the American Psychological Society, the Academy of Management, and a consulting editor for leading journals;

George Reisman, PhD, also emeritus professor and author of the comprehensive Capitalism: a Treatise on Economics;

Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi, edirots of the journal Aristos, for their work on Rand's esthetics, What Art Is: the Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand;

Ann Wortham, PhD, author of The Other Side of Racism.

Jeff Britting on Rand's life, Ayn Rand (2004, Overlook);

And, on the same topic, the Academy Award nominated documentary, Ayn Rand: a Sense of Life.

Actually many of these people have not written works "explicating" and "defending" Rand's thought. Reisman's book is on economics and mentions Rand only in passing, Britting's book is a brief biography and doesn't go into any detail in Rand's thought; Gotthelf* hasn't written "many" works on Rand, by my count only two or three pieces; etc.

*For those who haven't seen it, this piece by Gotthelf is interesting (although it suffers from "footnoteitis"):

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/metaphysicsofscie...rs/gotthelf.pdf

Edited May 24, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Alfonso Jones]

Neil -

You seem to be migrating the thread to the distinct but related one:

Why Nobody Takes James Valliant Seriously Anymore

(If they ever did...)

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Robert Campbell]

Neil,

You're being too decorous here

Mr. Valliant exhibited considerable chutzpah when he paraded that list of Randian authors. Several of those listed are unpersons from the ARIan point of view, and Mr. Valliant had repeatedly defended their consignment to unpersonhood.

I guess it takes an "ugly troll" to point out things like that

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

Robert commented on Pigero's claim that Sciabarra intitiated force by privately sharing his opinions of others. Here's where Pigero made the idiotic statement.

Re the "inexcusable" publishing of Sciabarra's e-mails in Diana's article—we've been through this, have we not? All things being equal, of course one should not publish private e-mails. But the man was using confidentiality as a cloak for dishonest smearing and backstabbing. That was what was truly inexcusable. In the circumstances publication was entirely justified in my view. I saw Diana's piece in advance and gave it the go-ahead to appear on SOLO. With or without SOLO, she would have published it on her own site anyway. As I saw it, Sciabarra was clandestinely initiating force; exposing what he was up to was self-defence. He is as welcome to respond here now as he was then, but to date, as far as I know, he has opted for silence everywhere.

From what I've seen, Sciabarra wasn't "smearing and backstabbling" anyone, but accurately identifying assholes for what they were, while being a bit too polite to say the same things publicly.

J

[Jonathan]

I guess the question then is, why would someone only apply that method of thinking to Rand? Why would a person be willing to believe that PARC has shown him the light, and that people who point to all of the gaping holes in PARC could only be motivated by trying give Rand feet of clay? Neil and others have provided a hell of a lot of criticism of PARC that Rand's admirers could try to refute. Yet they don't do so, but instead prefer to ponder why everyone is being so mean to their hero.

Jonathan,

I am only speculating, but I am working on an idea. In psychology there is a concept called emotional hijack. It is put in terms a layman can understand by Daniel Goleman in Emotional Intelligence. Look at the following diagram from p. 19:

Thanks, MSK. My own hypothesis is similar, only not quite so technical. My view has been that there's something in the brain that I like to call the "Cocoa Puffs Lobe" which makes people, and Cocoa Puffs Birds, go "cuckoo" for certain things.

In the case of the Cocoa Puffs Bird, it's actual Cocoa Puffs that he goes cuckoo for. Others go cuckoo for things like Ayn Rand, Pigero, or Jesus, or maybe Mario Lanza, Firefly or the band Rush.

J

P.S. In case there's any potential for misunderstanding, let me say that I think that Cocoa Puffs are crunchy, munchy, chocolatey and delicious, but I also think that there are breakfast options which are much more nutritious and healthy. So, if anyone reading this is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, I want you to know that it's not important for me to "find fault" with Cocoa Puffs and to try to "pull them down." Okay? I like them, and it's okay for you to like them. I just think that they're too sugary to eat every day.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael, you refer to Chris Cathcart as:

[....] this child [and] that boy [....]

Are you unaware that Chris Cathcart is well past the age of "child" or "boy"? I'm not sure exactly how old he is, but from his list-land history and from things he's said about his life history, I think he has to be at minimum in his late 30s, maybe even older. The picture he uses might be an old one.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just had a thought.

I don't think anyone on this thread thinks that the books by Barbara and Nathaniel are flawless and do not contain the natural biases inherent in books about intimate (or formerly intimate) acquaintences. I have seen practically every one on OL discussing this say—at one time or another—something to the effect that they do.

Actually, it would be a good thing if these parts were properly identified and, where applicable, corrected and/or qualified, but in an objective manner and not as an orchestrated smear job.

(In fact, we have done a pretty good jop of making some corrections and identifications on OL, but the material gets buried in threads as is normal in the architecture of discussion forums. I intend to dig some of this up and organize it someday. There are many other issues where I expect to that, too. There's a lot of great stuff on OL.)

I think, in the big picture, PARC has had the exact opposite effect than was intended. When normal people (by that I mean people not committed one way or the other, neither for or against Rand except in a very general way) see something so propaganda-like and hamhanded as PARC and the boneheaded behavior by all the zealots, they are prone to take the Brandens's books at face value. After all, they have lives to live and are not eternal. Why bother with something that irrational?

If anything, I think this hairbrained leap into the jaws of glory by Valliant and supporters solidified the seriousness with which the accounts by Barbara and Nathaniel is taken and, unfortunately, delayed interest in actually correcting the errors.

Now that few are taking Valliant seriously anymore, if and when PARC is ever brought up in a discussion by a normal person, some of this crap is bound to be mentioned. Bang. The hammer hits the spike and the spike sinks deeper—you know—the spike PARC was intended to remove. (Did you hear that, ARI Branden-haters? Just look outside your world with your own eyes and try to deny this.)

PARC did have one positive effect. It allows boneheaded zealots to identify each other easier, and others to identify them easier as well. At least they can gather in their tribes and do whatever zealots do and we can get on with building a marvelous world.

I find both of these things ironic and they prompt in me several conflicting emotions, most of them not good.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Ellen's right about Chris Cathcart not being a boy. He has to be somewhere northward of 35.

But I see why people get that impression.

I didn't intend them as such, but my closing remarks to him could almost be prefaced with

"Son, we need to have a talk"

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I stand corrected on Cathcart. But my impression was an honest one taken directly from his writing.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Jonathan,

Thank you for dredging up Mr. Perigo's second statement of the "initiation of force" charge.

I'd challenged him to defend the first one, which appeared last year:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2475#comment-31055

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

I just had a thought.

I don't think anyone on this thread thinks that the books by Barbara and Nathaniel are flawless and do not contain the natural biases inherent in books about intimate (or formerly intimate) acquaintences. I have seen practically every one on OL discussing this say—at one time or another—something to the effect that they do.

Actually, it would be a good thing if these parts were properly identified and, where applicable, corrected and/or qualified, but in an objective manner and not as an orchestrated smear job.

I strongly agree that it would be a good thing to do that -- and that all the fuss over PARC has been a huge impediment to doing that. With all the shouting going on, a calm discussion of the biography and memoir (both versions) is next to impossible.

Ellen

___

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

In my first two essays, I stated that the Brandens' books are not the last word on Rand and that their biases should be taken into account. I made a couple of minor criticism of the books in the essays.

I said before and since that there is too much psychologizing in the books for my taste and some generalizations about Rand's character which appear to go beyond the evidence provided.

I do not, however, see these problems as compeling a conclusion that "the Brandens" have made entire incidents up out of whole cloth or concluding that we should be skeptical about believing things that only the Brandens were privy to (such as the effect of the affair on Frank).

Edited May 24, 2008 by Neil Parille