Michael Shermer retracts Cult Claim

[kiaer.ts]

Michael Shermer famously pronounced his opinion that Objectivism is a cult. He also retracted this claim, and the text was available on line. Can anyone help point to Shermer's retraction of the claim? Thanks.

[Rich Engle]

Good question. He published the attack in what, '93? I never thought much of it, it was such a pull the string in front of the cat argument. Back then I happened to be doing even more research on cults than usual, since I was dealing with a very disturbing personal situation involving the Landmark Forum/EST folks. I do remember that Rick Ross doesn't keep Rand or Objectivism on his archive--didn't then, doesn't now.

I'd llike to hear that retraction.

[Chris Grieb]

Good question. He published the attack in what, '93? I never thought much of it, it was such a pull the string in front of the cat argument. Back then I happened to be doing even more research on cults than usual, since I was dealing with a very disturbing personal situation involving the Landmark Forum/EST folks. I do remember that Rick Ross doesn't keep Rand or Objectivism on his archive--didn't then, doesn't now.

I'd llike to hear that retraction.

Rich; What is the Landmark Forum? I know about EST.

Who is Rick Ross?

Isn't Shermer associated with The Skeptic. Maybe there is something there. Michael Shermer met with David Kelley and Ed Hudgins at TAS. Maybe the two of them know something about Shermer's change of mind.

[Rich Engle]

Rick Ross is pretty much the top man as far as expert witness/cult deprogramming/cult watch list keeper: www.rickross.com . He is a really good guy. He's been on Dr. Phil lately, but don't hold that against him, it's a good thing for his career, I guess.

Landmark is the newer, re-grooved version of EST, a little travelling roadshow run by "Werner Erhard" also known as John Paul Rosenberg, Jack Rosenberg, Jack Frost, Werner Spits and Curt Wilhelm VonSavage .

I've written about them before due to an unfortunate encounter I was forced into with them, and will not say much else publicly about them. Even though I am a little fish, they are fond of libel suits. But still, as a matter of personal experience and opinion, they are a bunch of uber-creepy fucksticks.

Sorry about the thread creep. If you want to know more about EST/Landmark/The Forum, go to Rick's site and check the list of watched groups, they're all over it with bells on their toes.

r

[kiaer.ts]

Shermer published his acusation, then later retracted it, saying that while some exhibited cultlike qualities, Objectivism per se did not fit the definition. His accusation and retraction were both published on the web, the retraction may have been as a footnote or comment to the accusation. I do believe it was affiliated with the Skeptic. I have never been a fan of Shermer, his moral skepticism has always turned me off. I had not been aware that he had considered himself an Objectivist or that he had published the accusation or the retraction. At some point since last summer someone posted a link where I found hsi accusation and his retraction. Of course, a google search for Shermer Objectivism cult will provide the accusation, but adding "not a" is not very helpful in finding the retraction.

[Chris Grieb]

Rick Ross is pretty much the top man as far as expert witness/cult deprogramming/cult watch list keeper: www.rickross.com . He is a really good guy. He's been on Dr. Phil lately, but don't hold that against him, it's a good thing for his career, I guess.

Landmark is the newer, re-grooved version of EST, a little travelling roadshow run by "Werner Erhard" also known as John Paul Rosenberg, Jack Rosenberg, Jack Frost, Werner Spits and Curt Wilhelm VonSavage .

I've written about them before due to an unfortunate encounter I was forced into with them, and will not say much else publicly about them. Even though I am a little fish, they are fond of libel suits. But still, as a matter of personal experience and opinion, they are a bunch of uber-creepy fucksticks.

Sorry about the thread creep. If you want to know more about EST/Landmark/The Forum, go to Rick's site and check the list of watched groups, they're all over it with bells on their toes.

r

Rich; Thanks for the info.

Thanks for all the alias for "Werner Erhard". Thanks also for the Rich Ross web site.

I have to ask if you have seen the movie "Semi-Tough". I understand that there is an "Est" like cult depicted in the movie. I don't remember many details of the movie.

[Selene]

Semi Tough is a serious hilarious football movie with Burt Reynolds, Jill Clayburg and Kris Kristofferson 1977 and there is some touchy feely stuff and getting in touch with your inner self stuff.

[Roger Bissell]

Semi Tough is a serious hilarious football movie with Burt Reynolds, Jill Clayburg and Kris Kristofferson 1977 and there is some touchy feely stuff and getting in touch with your inner self stuff.

Burt Reynolds' tactic for dealing with the grueling, no-potty-break group session was priceless. One of my favorite moments in cinema.

REB

[Chris Grieb]

Didn't Bert Covey play the Werner Ernard character? Maybe TCM will run it.

[Rich Engle]

I believe there is also a remake of Semi-Tough, or at least something new along the same line/title...just on the other night but I'm too busy to get too involved with TV. I'm lucky I stay caught up on "Burn Notice," and that's just because aside from it being a cool spy show, I am a big fan of Bruce Campbell.

But anyway, Werner E., all you have to do is the research. Long story short, flim-flam. Car salesman. His original stuff was an amalgam, taken from many areas. This and that...sales training, spiritual and philo systems, blah blah. Nasty stew. El Ron was bad enough, not sure which of the two is worse.

The thing is the essence of it remains, meaning that it is, and always has been based on the premise of deconstruction, and I simply am against that practice across the board, whether it's psychological, or grooming a musician, whatever. It is not something you do all the time everywhere. It is also very, very dangerous to unravel certain psyches that harshly.

Now, I will say that there are innocents that have stayed within their walls. But eventually, you are turned into a Manchurian Candidate. They encourage their creepy-ass "enrollment mentality" right off rip. Once you get to a certain level (ah, they kind of resemble multilevel marketing in their command structure, at least at the lower, less evil levels...you got your local Masons then you have your real evil douches...), you have become an instrument, know it or not.

And of course, you have just fallen off the turnip truck if you can't figure out that those performing such an operation on you also leave themselves clear to implant control mechanisms and such, one way or another. Stockholm Syndrome is a cakewalk compared to these people, if they get into you long enough, because they have you for life at that point.

I've seen it over and over, up close, and I give no quarter to this. It is brain salad surgery, and it's wrong, whether you know that or not while you're doing it.

This is one of those topics where I will write about it some if asked, but I find it so upsetting that I can only do so much. And see, if you said that in a Landmark session, they'd tell you you're running a racket on yourself. Well, fine, fuckers: go have that.

I've been kind of waiting around for one of the Landmark creeps to show up around here. They are part of what I always am scanning for. I think one time someone briefly shot in here, but they were gone in a minute. I forget if I went after them straight off (likely), or they just knew better once they saw what OL is. Either way. Any passionate, informed Rand reader would make mincemeat out of these guys, because if you look at their modus operandi, it is malevolent, it is in violation of any "Prime Directives" I've ever seen out of Rand. Mainly, because it violates primacy of thought, of mind.

I would love to take one of them on in straight debate, except that it would be time I should spend elsewhere. They are vampires. But if they ever do show up anywhere where I am, it's on, and I will go scorched earth theory. It is one of those rare instances where my true moral compass (such as it is) takes over; I will tear and claw and gouge and I will not stop. Not only that, but I'll be asking the rest of you to participate like a pack of hyenas. That's how much contempt I have for these people.

You can see how I am about this, it makes me froth and tear at the lead. I am not baiting them to come, because mostly I prefer to avoid engagement, that being the main premise (it avoids injury). BUT. Intellectually, that's one of those fights for which I will forever remain equipped. I have seen their work.

r

Edited February 16, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Ed Hudgins]

Here's a link to my article on "Skeptics and Humanists: Allies or Enemies of Individualism?" from The New Individualist April 2006 in which I discuss Michael Shermer's views on ethics:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1772-skeptics_1.aspx

And here's a link to my interview with Shermer from the TNI, Jan-Feb. 2007:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1852-M_Shermer.aspx

Also, for those of you who were at te 2008 Summer Seminar, I discussed Shermer's Objectivist-friendly ideas as well as his limits in my talk "The New Atheism & Objectivist Opportunities."

[Selene]

Chris:

Yep, Bert Convey and the name of the character was Friedrich Bismark!

:poke: :frantics: :hug: < just like an EST session, tear open the wound - let the person - vent and then a hug - excuse me while I gag.

Adam

[Jerry Biggers]

I did not know that Shermer had retracted his reference in his book to Objectivism as a cult. What I do remember from his book, is that in an attempt to explain how a philosophy that places reason/rationality as one of its cardinal values/virtues could end up as a cult, he places the cause squarely on Rand's claim that a code of ethics can be logically derived from the facts of existence. And by denying the core and central tenant upon which Rand derives her system, Shermer pretty much tried to pull the house down. (He may, in fact, believe in some or all of her ethics, but he does not provide an alternative theory upon which to ground them).

In the recent interview that Ed Hudgins had with Michael Shermer (in The Individualist a year or so ago), Shermer expressed his admiration and support for Objectivism, but never discussed or retracted his basic criticisms of Objectivism which was given in his book (the title of which, I believe, was Why Do People Believe Weird Things?). Curiously, Ed did not probe or really discuss Shermer's criticisms in the printed interview. If they discussed these issues, it was left out of the interview.

Shermer has also turned his magazine, The Skeptic, over to the "global warming crowd" (while throwing in a few token articles by critics of Global Warming, after expressing surprise that so many of the magazine's readers had expressed their disgust at his editorial abandoning his previous open discussion policy in favor of advocating for immediate action on Global Warming.) He certainly does not show much skepticism toward that theory, pretty much declaring that it was now "proven" beyond a reasonable doubt. A recent issue of The Skeptic (late 2008), totally abandoning any sense of reasonable objectivity, had as its cover, an emotionally highly-charged painting depicting hundreds of polar bears each individually stranded on their own melting pieces of ice. Other than being a total fantasy (or wish-fulfillment?) of the Global Warming advocates, such a depiction was clearly meant to cause an emotional reaction and not a rational examination of the facts.

If Michael Shermer has now reconsidered Objectivism, and endorses the foundations of Rand's philosophy, he should clearly state so in an article in his magazine. And, when he gets the chance, revise the chapter on Rand in his book.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Rich Engle]

Jerry,

That was helpful.

Well, if we want to get Shermer to do that, all you have to do is get him for us. Then Adam and I will perform our own brand of EST on him. He should be pliable, compliant, and ready to testify. He'll look and sound OK, but for maybe an occasional eye tic, drooling here and there. Nothing a Xanax couldn't tone down. Just depends how well we do the work.

rde

Always there to help.

[Selene]

Please Rich....

can I be the "BAD" cop this time?

You always get to have all the fun and I just got my BDSM Interrogation Scene certificate.

Adam

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

That was helpful.

Well, if we want to get Shermer to do that, all you have to do is get him for us. Then Adam and I will perform our own brand of EST on him. He should be pliable, compliant, and ready to testify. He'll look and sound OK, but for maybe an occasional eye tic, drooling here and there. Nothing a Xanax couldn't tone down. Just depends how well we do the work.

rde

Always there to help.

Ted,

I did not know that Werner Erhard (or whatever he now calls himself) was still, er, "practicing." Of course, the scientologists have (to paraphrase many movie Gestapo villains) "..ways of getting you to talk!" followed by a maniacal, "Heh, heh, heh!"

But, of course, from previous statements on this thread, Shermer may have already admitted the error of his ways. (Does anyone have the link to his purported reconsideration of Objectivism?).

Now if we can only get him to reconsider his newly embraced cult of Global Warming! (I keep seeing all those polar bears - alone and floating among melting ice! What if they fall into the water?! Oh, wait a minute, rationality just kicked in - polar bears do know how to swim, don't they?) I've just GOT to keep a grip on myself!

Edited February 16, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[Ed Hudgins]

Just catching up on posts --

Shermer isn’t an Objectivist but considers himself friendly to the philosophy. Read the good things he says about Rand’s works in Why People Believe Weird Things.

In Weird Things he argues that the cult-like behavior found in many Objectivist circles—though not TAS—comes from trying to have an absolute morality from which one can deductively determine good and evil in concrete situations. Also see his detailed discussion in The Science of Good and Evil.

He has a typology of absolute, relative, and provision morality. He suggests that Objectivists have tended to place morality in the “absolute” category. I argue that his categories correspond roughly to the Objectivist typology of “intrinsic, subjective, and Objective” and I’ve explain to him the role of context in making moral judgments, one he seems to appreciate. (Of course, I’ve tried to explain this to a lot of the sort of Objectivists that he'd classify as "cult-like" as well but with mixed results!)

I still don’t think Shermer’s provisional morality is rooted firmly enough man’s nature and part of my original work is to show that the good but still incomplete works of the new skeptics/atheists like Shermer, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett point to Objectivist morality.

Also see Shermer’s advocacy of limited government and free markets based on the insights of Darwin. See my mention and links on another OL thread: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...?showtopic=6584

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I argue that his categories correspond roughly to the Objectivist typology of “intrinsic, subjective, and Objective” and I’ve explain to him the role of context in making moral judgments, one he seems to appreciate. (Of course, I’ve tried to explain this to a lot of the sort of Objectivists that he'd classify as "cult-like" as well but with mixed results!)

Ed,

Hmmmmmm...

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Just catching up on posts --

Shermer isn’t an Objectivist but considers himself friendly to the philosophy. Read the good things he says about Rand’s works in Why People Believe Weird Things.

In Weird Things he argues that the cult-like behavior found in many Objectivist circles—though not TAS—comes from trying to have an absolute morality from which one can deductively determine good and evil in concrete situations. Also see his detailed discussion in The Science of Good and Evil.

He has a typology of absolute, relative, and provision morality. He suggests that Objectivists have tended to place morality in the “absolute” category. I argue that his categories correspond roughly to the Objectivist typology of “intrinsic, subjective, and Objective” and I’ve explain to him the role of context in making moral judgments, one he seems to appreciate. (Of course, I’ve tried to explain this to a lot of the sort of Objectivists that he'd classify as "cult-like" as well but with mixed results!)

I still don’t think Shermer’s provisional morality is rooted firmly enough man’s nature and part of my original work is to show that the good but still incomplete works of the new skeptics/atheists like Shermer, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett point to Objectivist morality.

Also see Shermer’s advocacy of limited government and free markets based on the insights of Darwin. See my mention and links on another OL thread: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...?showtopic=6584

Ed,

In response:

1) Shermer has been demonstrably much more favorable to the Global Warming advocates, practically turning his magazine over to an (with a few exceptions) advocacy of that position. I do not see any evidence, other than his vaguely (and very qualified) libertarian-free market statements, of any real reconsideration by him of his clearly anti-Objectivist criticisms in Why People Believe Weird Things. (Incidentally, are we reading the same book? Most people would view his chapter on Objectivism as a pretty severe criticism. Anything positive he says about Rand's philosophy early on, is negated in subsequent paragraphs. I would invite the curious to read that chapter and judge for themselves.

2) Your second paragraph sums it up: since he believes that Objectivism "is wrong in trying to have an absolute morality from which one can deductively determine good and evil in concrete situations..." than he has pretty much rejected the message in Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism.

3) I would agree that the so-called "New Atheists" may undermine one's religious beliefs. Their emphasis on reason could possibly lead one to consider Rand's views. However, there is nothing overtly pro-capitalist in their views. I don't see them citing Rand or quoting from her arguments on religion in their books. If I recall correctly, they do not even cite George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God (which utilizes some Objectivist arguments) as a resource. And, I regret to say, these "New Atheists" would take great exception to your proposition that their arguments would lead the reader to Objectivism. But, if you are ever get the chance to participate in a panel discussion with the "New Atheists," why don't you try that argument (that they're proto-Objectivists) and see what their response is? (Please be sure to have an escape route carefully planned prior to asking them!).

4) While I think that dialogue with the humanists may be useful, I fear that their objections to Rand's philosophy stems more from their hatred of capitalism. Any agreement on issues of religion would be beside the point to them.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Jerry Biggers

[kiaer.ts]

Well, I am still loooking for the specific reference as to where Shermer reversed himself on the cult claim. Basically, I remember reading on a blog that some time after the published claim (which I think was in the Skeptic) he said that Objectivism, while exhibiting some cult like qualities, did not fit his full definition of a cult. It is this semi-retraction that I am looking for.