Like almost all of you in Objectivism, I like ideas, and that is something I enjoy on forums. At one point several years ago on the old solo there was a really fun synergy of discussions, several different kinds of people, different groups of friends, and hell of lot of bantering. If someone expressed a view you didn't like there were always two or three people who would chime in with a retort--that would roughly match your own.
For years I have been puzzled by Perigo's rants and take downs of really fine people. His and others explanations, apologies, condemnations didn't seem to fit right. Recently, I read a post of his, with his typical character assassination thrown in as an aside about my integrity, and it grouped together about 4 slights that made me bad. Each of those slights had a common denominator: the slights were not about my integrity but about my loyalty to him. Replacing him at a TAS conference, questioning the artistic integrity of his idol Lanza, and siding with Barbara Branden (though I have no idea where that came from).
The puzzle was if he believes in passion, independence, objectivism, reason, etc why the disconnect? Loyalty to a person isn't part of passionate people who go their own way...of course, we all build friendships that appear loyal, but they are built on experience and shared values, not submission.
So here is a very clever and prominent man trashing hundreds of really good people, for all kinds of reasons, except naming that it is because they are not loyal to him.
I don't know about how other people here feel about it, but instead of dismissing Perigo simply outright, I understand quite a bit more than I had previously.
This brings me also to Jonathan. He has puzzled me as well. As a stated artist, he should enjoy that there is a colleague painting a lot, showing, writing art stuff. It shouldn't matter how much he agrees in detail about it, but there should be some camaraderie there. Reversing it, if he would like recognition then it simply takes sharing his own works, his excitement for his aesthetic discoveries, his ongoing projects, and etc. Even if he were a commercial artist, I would enjoy seeing how he solves problems and what he is doing. But he predominately shares his critical postings, not leaving me any room to relate.
One of the biggest puzzling things about Jonathan has been his instance that I am wrong about practically everything. What is odd, is that when I have replied in good faith, with all my sincerity, truthful observations, personal perspective...it is never accepted. Even if that is only right for me. It has gone way beyond disagreement, or an argument, world views, types of art...there is a really personal uncomfortable feeling about. Have any of you had someone hound you like that? I think George Smith has had something like that.
Anyway, the distinct impression I get from Jonathan is that I should not exist.
So, now I am thinking what does an artist do when he is shackled with a nasty critic on one objectivist site, and smeared by a bully on another, when I am honest, creative, independent, hard working, and respectful of reason, and never malicious? Fold up and leave? Challenge them to be better human beings? Simply call them on it? At the home the answer is easy, tell'um to got frick themselves, but on a forum it has a different dynamic. And I am at a loss on the best way to proceed.
I bring up all of this because there will be other really good people that would love to participate more on objectivist forums, who may have felt as I do.
Perhaps the best solution to this is to question the critics motives.
That's my rant.
Edited by Newberry, 11 August 2010 - 06:48 PM.