The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism


Neil Parille

Recommended Posts

I am one of the few people here who is "pro-PARC" to a large extent. I don't want to get into a big dispute, but I feel like I should at least say my piece. Ellen Stuttle asks, "How well would you have dealt with the situation?" I agree it was a difficult situation, but one thing I would not have done is to lie to Rand for four years!! There is a lot of blaming Rand for expecting too much of Branden, and it isn't fair. It is not her fault if she expected him to behave like a grown-up and he wasn't capable of it.

I thought the cover photo was good. It is photochopped, but just to remove some people's heads and move the 2 subjects closer together so it would look better on the cover. Branden looks a bit shifty and shady, just what Valliant is trying to show in the text as well.

I thought I was pro-PARC until I interacted with Valliant. Then I wondered how I could possibly agree with such a person. The agreement I had with PARC had more to do with my own conclusions prior to PARC that happened to line up with Valliant's. I didn't read it very carefully. Part of the reason was that I just wasn't interesting, I kinda skimmed it up until I hit Rand's notes.

Here's my thoughts: Barbara Branden's book is obviously biased. But it is so obviously biased that I don't consider it dishonest. I don't see evidence that she distorted things on purpose, what I see is her evaluating Rand non-objectively, but leaving enough facts that an objective person won't come to the same conclusions. That's a sign of her not thinking clearly, not of dishonesty as Valliant asserts. The movie is offensive. On the other hand, the book has caused damage due to people who read it uncritically (e.g., people who focus on the affair an associate that with Objectivism). On the other hand, I find Nathaniel Branden's writing more leaning to the dishonest. Especially his "Benefits and Hazards" piece. But again, any honest reader familiar with Ayn Rand's works can see for themselves where he distorts.

So I don't see the value in PARC--even as I agree with some of its conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 387
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I particularly find nothing dishonest at all about "Benefits and Hazards" or any other post-break writings by NB (or pre-break). I have perceived bitterness, anger, regret, and other such, but not dishonesty. I do not perceive unclear thinking by Barbara, either. (And if Barbara had not spilled the beans about the affair, somebody else would have—possibly one of those investigative journalists who love this kind of thing.) Both lived their lives and have come to their own honest conclusions. Both told it as they saw it.

Agree with that or not. I don't care. I want no more comments on OL about post-Affair dishonesty of the Brandens. Talk that crap on other forums. There are plenty out there, two in particular salivating for this.

Disagreement is OK here ("correct" or "incorrect"). Bashing is not ("dishonest," coward," etc.). I have been straight-up about this since the beginning. Please refer to the posting guidelines.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and meanwhile there was a young, vital partner with whom you could feel bouyant and free...

How well would you have dealt with the situation?

Ellen

Edit: Spelling error

___

Ellen, is the little "Edit" postscript referring to the fact that you

misspelled "buoyant"? Are you testing us to see if we can spot

that? -- Mike

LOL. No, it was much more diabolical. I was alerting you, in case you'd noticed my Roland-bait goof, that it had been fixed and hinting that this isn't a good thread to divert from the subject with Roland games. Since evidently you didn't see the gaffe, I won't tell you what it was. (I'll fix "buoyant"; I didn't notice that.)

E-

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Analysis of PARC looking for refutation on its own terms has value, but remember the author has the privilege of continuous refutations of the refutations. Something that cuts deeper is needed. Sometime in the next two weeks I'll put up my own review on Amazon which will replace one I deleted over a year ago which savaged PARC. This time I'll be much more dry and phlegmatic. Also, fairly short. In the meantime, please consider the religious depiction certain "Objectivists" want the public to have of Ayn Rand and her philosophy and how Barbara Branden's biography stops them cold and marginalizes them. It is Ayn Rand the human being they can't accept or deal with or use, albeit they will say otherwise. And because of this Objectivism is not a liberating, life-giving philosophy for them, but a straitjacket of their own and Rand's prejudices and limitations. Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is not Objectivism the philosophy of anybody else. It is not objectivity but conformity, not to reality but to a dead woman. As such it is not even second-handism for them today, but third and fourth-handism as it is filtered down through her disciples.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I don't disagree that there was an element of what might loosely be described as "power lust" in Nathaniel's desire to remain at the helm of NBI, the description leaves out the depth of the conflict he was in.

Nathaniel himself believed that he should respond to Ayn Rand in the way that she believed he should respond. He believed her theory of sex. The fatal trap for all of the principals, except Patrecia, in the circumstances was their all believing -- Ayn Rand first and foremost -- that her theory of sex was correct and that therefore IF Nathaniel Branden was a moral giant he would continue wanting to go to bed with Ayn Rand despite his age/her age, her years of depression, her nagging him, her desire to keep the affair secret (she wouldn't even get a separate apartment), his wish for some youth and joy. Think about it, especially the guys on the list, suppose you were told, and believed, that you should be romantically inclined toward a woman 25 years your senior to whom you once had been attracted sexually but who was now aging, becoming bitter, had relied on you for help during a bad depression, kept analyzing your every action ("Why aren't you being spontaneous?") and meanwhile there was a young, vital partner with whom you could feel buoyant and free...

How well would you have dealt with the situation?

Ellen

___

Well, I had in mind his relationship with NBI students. When Ayn Rand lost

her patience with those who misunderstood her, he backed her up and attacked

the latter. With her, it was emotion; with him, it seems to have been often

calculated. The person attacked would remember that _she_ attacked him;

_she_ would remember that NB backed her up; only he would know that he

was doing it to keep students in fear and awe of him. That's the impression

that _his_ (Nathaniel Branden's) book left me with, long before I heard of

Valliant. That's what I had in mind when I said probably Valliant can succeed

in convicting NB of the things that NB had already, if not very explicitly,

confessed to in his book.

I read Neil Parille's initial posting in this thread all the way through this morning.

Where he shows Valliant falsifying a quote from Barbara Branden's book,

about Ayn Rand's reason for (allegedly) not telling her relatives her new name,

is a smoking gun if true, and I'm going to dig out both books and check for

myself. -- Mike Hardy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. No, it was much more diabolical. I was alerting you, in case you'd noticed my Roland-bait goof, that it had been fixed and hinting that this isn't a good thread to divert from the subject with Roland games. Since evidently you didn't see the gaffe, I won't tell you what it was. (I'll fix "buoyant"; I didn't notice that.)

E-

___

L.N. Subtle, I had no idea you were so evil. Now I'll have to

torture you until you confess. But don't worry: your rights will

be fully respected---if you die under torture without confessing,

you will be publically proclaimed innocent (even though you're

not). -- Mike Hardy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Neil Parille's initial posting in this thread all the way through this morning.

Where he shows Valliant falsifying a quote from Barbara Branden's book,

about Ayn Rand's reason for (allegedly) not telling her relatives her new name,

is a smoking gun if true, and I'm going to dig out both books and check for

myself. -- Mike Hardy

Mike,

More people should do this kind of checking. There are smoking guns all over the place. But it is rare for somebody to want to read PARC with PAR, JD and MYWAR (and interviews) out in front of them to cross-check the criticisms. They have lives to lead.

But as time goes on, more and more people will do this and share their findings. I have cross-checked many passages. From what I have discerned, time will not be kind to Valliant. Not at all.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am now of the view that Valliant shouldn’t have come down so hard on the Brandens with such vitriolic rhetoric. The book didn’t need to be half as long as it was, but I am glad that the “other side” was told. After all, there is a divide in the Objectivist community and Valliant’s work is that voice speaking. That voice is sometimes compelling and sometimes irritatingly shrill. I think it would have been much better to simply have published Rand’s private journals as a stand-alone for scholars to study. That is, the journals could be studied on their own merits or in reference to the Branden claims. If there are contradictions and clashes, they can be identified and judged solely by Rand’s own words—Valliant free. This way, we could have avoided a debate that has collapsed in trivia...such as the book’s jacket design.

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a link to an article related to PARC and PAR, etc., which some of you might want to read. The article is long, but I found it interesting and well written. I posted a comment (#4) on the blog alerting the author to this site -- and correcting his conflating Rand's two appearances on the Donahue Show. (He says that Barbara's description is inconsistent, but he didn't realize that she was describing two different appearances.)

http://theonlywinningmove.blogspot.com/200...ike-review.html

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To anyone who has gotten this far down in the thread, I think people should read Nathaniel's books on psychology, especially the Psychology of Romantic Love and the Six Pillars of Self Esteem before reading Barbara's biography, Nathaniel's memoir or Valliant's book. Whenever I've tried to start a thread on Nathaniel's books I get a few posts and then silence. These books are important for Objectivism regardless of people's personal views of the Dramatis Personae.

Also, having attended some of Nathaniel's early lectures from 1996 and 1998 at then IOS, they were excellent. I am saying this because people need to read books and listen to lectures that will benefit them personally before they read biographies and Objectivist movement politics. It's also a pity that Carolyn Ray's excellent lecture on Friendship and Love at 1995 IOS which sourced the Psychology of Romantic Love heavily is not widely available on tape.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor,

I agree that the book cover is not very important, just a detail. The debate did not "collapse" because a detail was brought up. And it will not "collapse." It is just starting. You ain't seen nothing yet. Valliant is a vicious liar and rhetorical manipulator. There is a great deal of proof coming, for example side-by-side quotes, for those who have not had the time to see for themselves.

I suggest reading the article at the head of this thread for a start. You know, those little inconsistencies that are a bit more than "irritatingly shrill"? Why not identify them correctly, like "wrong" or "lie"? There are many, many more.

If this is the nature of "that voice speaking" for "the other side," and accepted as rational and decisive by such side, well... that speaks for itself.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

At the core, I think that the Objectivist divide has much more to do than the Branden and Rand split —although it may have served as a catalyst. I think there is some sort of “intellectual babul” with hard-core philosophical clashes and tons of misunderstanding orbiting around “the split.” But it is not "the split" that is really at the crux of it now--as it may have been in 1968. This isn’t really about that at all.

Every team (in war, sports, politics, nation) needs a motto, a flag, emblems, colors, uniforms, a designated name, etc—to separate the “us” from the “them.” In the Objectivist subculture, the teams are identified as being either a “Randdroid” or a “Brandendroid.” But fact is, the clash is much deeper, much more significant, much more fundamental than “who slept with whom and who lied to whom.” It involves fundamental philosophical issues such as ethics (benevolence and selfishness, etc) and epistemology, historical causation and free-will, etc.

Being identified as either a Brandenroid or a Randdroid involves something more momentous than sexual politics or bad daytime television. If you are a Brandenroid, well…you are an emotionalist and a tolerationisnt! If you are a Randdroid…well, you take everything Rand said as gospel and are guilty of idolatry.

At the root, it is on these issues where the real clash is to be observed—and the Branden and Rand quarrel is just so much dancing around the issues of a family that doesn’t want to identify and resolve that which is actually tearing them apart. ["Rand was just a human being..." "The Brandens lied for years..."..."Rand hurt Frank"..."Branden hurt Rand..."] bla, bla, bla. Anything but what the real clash is about: philosophy. But at least each "side" has their own team name. Does anybody want me to design a flag?

-Victor

[Do you agree with any of these insights?]

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor,

Your comments only scratch the surface. I agree that the divide is much deeper than the 1968 break. But it is not about warring tribes using philosophy as a banner.

I don't know why you insist on honoring Perigo by using his catchwords, anyway. All that does is state that you believe that some kind of war is going on and identify him as one of the warriors on one of the sides, granting him an intellectual status he did not earn and does not deserve. There is no war. This is not a Hatfields and McCoys feud and I am not even a major player.

My own involvement in this affair is personal—like a proper individualist. I was in a really bad way when I read Barbara Branden's book. Because of the insights in that book, especially the unmasking of the myths surrounding Rand and Objectivism while retaining the core value of both, I saw something inside myself that gave me the strength to rise from the ashes and move on. I had been right in my youth about the way I saw reality—mistakes and all. I had been right because I had been using my own mind. I was wrong to adopt someone else's thinking for my own on a premise level, seduced by the myths to do so.

Opening my eyes to this at that moment in my life is a debt I cannot repay. I was literally near death.

When I came on the Objectivist scene, to my overwhelming delight, I met Barbara online. Her history in the public Objectivist culture goes back half a century, to the very founding. She has been a best seller. Mine goes back to 2005, although I had adopted the philosophy years earlier, and I have yet to write my first book. I am just a newcomer and a nobody so far.

What I saw in the Objectivist culture was appalling. I saw a small band of people representing a group of zealots invading the Internet environment wherever the Brandens were discussed to post voluminous posts trashing them in the vilest terms. They were so obnoxious that most people preferred not to engage them. What remained was a false impression that there were hoards of people and most were in agreement with the bile.

So to do my share and provide one small remedy to this, I (and Kat) established a single space in this new medium, the Internet forum, where that would not happen, where people could learn about the Brandens, and where the Brandens could discuss whatever they wished with people who wanted to discuss things with them. That was my manner of repaying a small portion of that debt.

One small space.

In contrast to how many spaces out there where trashing the Brandens is OK?

Then I read that boneheaded book, PARC, and saw every sort of lie and rhetorical gimmick used to raise the myths once again—in the name of Objectivism. And the case for those myths is so weak that the only way to do rev it up once again was to scapegoat those who were successful and had presented a different view of those myths to the public (the Brandens—then Chris Sciabarra). Well I know the price of those myths. I know what adopting them did to me.

And it is pretty clear what type of people are interested in selling those myths to the public, too. Look what they did to you. Then think about tribes and cults and guilt and self-recrimination and groveling.

Is that what Objectivism is? I say, "Hell no!" I also say those boneheads will never rule my mind. You decide about your own.

I stand by the truth. If I ever saw the Brandens lying and distorting facts like Valliant has done, I would take issue with them. But they don't. PARC certainly did not prove anything near that. All it did was present its own lies and distortions (in addition to some of Rand's journal entries, which are its only redeeming feature). Like I said, much is on the way to prove Valliant's integrity-twisting manipulations of rhetoric. Read Neil's article at the head of this thread for a good start. Then read some of the threads in the ARI Corner here on OL.

I have only one small space. I fully intend to use it to expose the mendacity of the intent and execution of PARC. If people wish to defend that book, there are plenty of places to do so. But not here.

I have no problem if a fact raised in PARC is discussed, regardless of the nature of that fact. I never have a problem with facts. But the boneheaded "spiritual rapist" kind of crap found in PARC and touted by brainwashed has no harbor on OL.

At this moment, my issue is not the divide in Objectivism. It is the nature of that book. Outside of the barefaced mendacity running throughout it in presenting facts, that book represents everything I despise in the way some people misuse Objectivism to try to justify their meanness of spirit and hatred of life—hatred of the benevolent universe—and hatred of people who do not let them rule their thinking. Objectivism is supposed to be used to glorify man through productive work, to glorify the beauty of the differences of individuals, not try to stir up people into a collective mob against other Objectivists or Objectivism-friendly people by lying about them and distorting their words.

All I have is just one small space and people who come here of their own free will.

Somehow, I think that is enough.

The truth never needs much more.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

The context and spirit contained in your above post speaks volumes about what is to come from your life. The best of Rand was to see through false dichotomies and create a new path to integration. Seeing through the false dichotomy of "Randroid" vs "Brandroid," amongst others, is the message I see in your post. I think the best of MSK is yet to come.

I am currently reevaluating many of my previous conclusions about Rand, Peikoff, and the ARI camp. My previous conclusions have roots in the underdeveloped context of my 21 year old self. I am now finding new value in their perspectives that goes beyond the principles they provide and into the structures they teach. This is having a profound affect on my conceptual frameworks and contextual lenses. I see creating a conceptual framework that can integrate the ARI principles and structures with the TAS principles and structures as the path to resolving the Objectivist divide. The route to creating this new conceptual framework is to be found in a deeper understanding of human nature that can identify deeper structures and dynamics, and can create a new integration of the psyche. ARI principles and structures and TAS principles and structures are just the expression of different integrations of the psyche---i.e.: different orientations of consciousness, conceptual frameworks, and motivational biases. Integrate the principles and structures of the psyche and you have the tools to integrate the principles and structures of ARI and TAS.

At this point I am not much interested in PARC, nor am I interested in Valliant's point of view beyond a marginal interest in his psychology for the insight it brings into a third camp of "Objectivists." This camp has very little value. This is the camp of contextual distortionists. Individuals in this camp will say "facts are their friend," and will not lie about salient facts, but approach context building as a fluid process with no anchor in reality. Fiction, not facts, is what shapes the underlying context of their perspective. When context is not grounded in fact, it is grounded in the motivational biases of the individual's self-image and emotions. This is what I get from depictions of Valliant, Perigo, and Hsieh. They are contextual distortionists who's context is shaped by their self-images and emotional biases because their intuitive perspective (that shapes one's context) is underdeveloped and not grounded in the evidence, facts, reality, etc. This is an unfortunate consequence of replacing one's authentic intuitive perspective with the fictions contained in books such as Atlas Shrugged or the Bible. One's own personal exploration, identifications, and integrations that shape our authentic intuitive perspectives stop, and context, no longer grounded in facts, becomes malleable. The art of spin doctoring becomes the tool of shaping one's subconscious personal context. Because it is subconscious, it is out of control.

The contextual distortionist camp needs to be identified for what it is, not lumped together with ARI. ARI has great value to offer. The contextual distortionists do not. It is an insult to the value of ARI to associate this third camp with them. The contextual distortionist mentality is a cancer in the individuals that use it as a tool of cognition and in the the Objectivist culture at large. It must be identified and removed if individuals and the Objectivist culture are to become healthy and grow.

Paul

Edited by Paul Mawdsley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Valliant and Hsieh are ARI with just enough plausible deniability to keep ARI out of these unpleasant slugfests. Before, ARI had Gary Hull and before that Peter Schwartz. ARI's value is tight conceptual integration which arms its students for intellectual trench warfare. This tight integration serves the purpose that Ayn Rand's force of personality had during the movement heyday: to keep the philosophy pure and to keep Objectivists on the straight and narrow. When you see what happens to many philosophy students along their journey in Objectivism it has a certain appeal.

However, their approach if unopposed would stunt Objectivism's growth and kill needed new ideas before they get off the ground. Look at Objectivism from 1982 to 1989. That is what they are headed back to with the exodus of Tracinski. TAS and others should read and learn from ARI and learn how to teach the Objectivist corpus as an integrated whole, while still leaving room for students to think and grow on their own.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael's story about Barbara and her book is nearly identical to mine with Nathaniel and his book.

It's always been funny for me because I hear all this smack being talked about "The Brandens" (this term in general is just lame anyway, the way it is used and for why), and how their writing was so injurious to the Rand legacy.

Yeah, right on. Bullshit.

The only related books outside of Rand I read until about 10 years ago were "Who is Ayn Rand?" and "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" (the latter of which I didn't grasp and had to reread later). In between, I was too busy with Jung and other things.

I was an Objectivist of the prick variety that I believe can be, as ever, easily spotted. It's some kind of violent backlash that seems to be built into the work; it takes some of the potentially great ones and turns them into total, nasty a-holes. A- holes at least or more judgmental and harsh than your off-the-shelf fundamentalist/born agin'.

There were so many things in Rand's work that were undeniable, inspirational. Breathtaking. But none of that seems to be a foolproof barrier as far as asshole prevention goes. I saw my social circle diminish. I saw people shrink at cocktail parties, beholding my fury, and above all my rightness and laser-like O-trained way of engagement. Yeah, it felt so good to "win."

My point is that I didn't know what to do with Rand. It turned into love/hate. I was ready to jettison the whole thing, baby and bathwater for a number of reasons other than the ones I mention here.

I happened to have a stray thought one day in my office... "Whatever happened to Nathaniel Branden?" So I did some web research and there he was. He, and his brilliant work on self-esteem.

A lot of good things happened to me after that, I'll skip over. But, the main thing was reading "My Years With Ayn Rand" as far as finding peace with Rand's work went.

He literally brought it all back to me by writing that book. It humanized her (boy did I get crap the last time I said that..."define humanizing!" and other typical O-drilldown techniques; I say if you don't understand what I mean by that, go back and figure it out someday with any luck, Godspeed).

I was able to go back to that beautiful moment I enjoyed when I first read Atlas and The Fountainhead (oddly, in the course of a month, at the same time reading "A Critique of Pure Reason," go figure).

I would've given up the whole thing, were it not for NB. He made sense of it for me, and the baby escaped the bathwater dumping.

So whenever I hear this stuff about the Evil Brandens and their denegrating, I just shake my head. Rightio, they really killed it for me.

Uh huh.

rde

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich,

It's mostly all out there and there will be a spectrum of people who disagree. However, the real enemy is the sanction gone haywire modus operandi. People can have strong disagreements, but they should not try to use psychological pressure to influence other people. The best ally Objectivism has is people who think for themselves. One thing I do not like about PARC is the way it is being used. The typical refrain is: have you read PARC, you're not fully informed unless you've read PARC. Well the same can be said for those who haven't read Nathaniel Branden's books and other source material. People need to metabolize this stuff for themselves, if they have the interest.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, James. Agree, and well-put.

It is frustrating to watch someone take a ball and run with it even though they haven't any need to know what the ball is for. They are too busy using it for their own means.

I am so sick of this autopsy. You are right, it isn't about the who's and whyfores... It's the only explanation for keeping this hideous undead creature alive for so long.

It is posturing.

It is PR spin, of the sloppy seconds variety. It is a hobo that is riding the train for free.

Anyone who has ever had any kind of a weird relationship challenge in their life can understand the whole thing with Rand and Branden. If we were to pillory everyone that lived through something like The Affiar, we'd be running out of chains and stocks.

There's a part of me that hopes, for his own edification, that Valliant finds himself in some equally scandalous position, just so he can do the learning process.

But I think he is immune. He didn't write that book to "vindicate" Ayn Rand. He wrote it to sell books and make a name for himself, for chrissakes. Now he's taking on the Bible. No such thing as bad publicity indeed. He gets it. A snake oil salesman got it. It's called sheep-shearing.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience was similar to what Rich describes. I jettisoned Rand's conceptual structures to hold onto my authentic perspective, while holding onto the basic principles. When I was reading Atlas Shrugged for a course in university, my girlfriend at that time bought a book called Honoring the Self. She raved about it so I took a look. It made sense to me that other authors should reference Ayn Rand. I figured her book should be so powerful that she should be referenced all over the place. Her book had captured my imagination and made sense out of my world. Later, when I was breaking free from Rand's perspective, I remembered that book my girlfriend had bought and began an exploration of the world and myself with Nathaniel Branden's guidance. Truth is, I've only really began bringing Rand's perspective back into my world in the past week through the effect discussions with Shayne and Mike E. have had on reevaluating a disowned side of myself. It has created an interesting jolt in my perspective.

Paul

(I'll try to squeeze more NB book titles into other posts. :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the similar story thing, Paul.

I guess it has something to do with not letting Rand's self-proclaimed interpreters and fllterationists (ooh, I think I just invented a new term) dictate every nuance. Personally, I have a huge issue with authority figures in the first place, but that's just me. Orthodoxy, to me, is just the ecclesastical structure trying to take power over the individual. Yeah, good luck on that one; you're talking to a guy that had to spend years being told that electric guitars are no more than noise-makers. In a phrase: blow me.

On the other hand, thanks to NB and BB's work, I was able to recover a huge amount of the goodness in Rand's work. There are a lot of things that ring truer than ever for me, in recent days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Valliant and Hsieh are ARI with just enough plausible deniability to keep ARI out of these unpleasant slugfests. Before, ARI had Gary Hull and before that Peter Schwartz. ARI's value is tight conceptual integration which arms its students for intellectual trench warfare. This tight integration serves the purpose that Ayn Rand's force of personality had during the movement heyday: to keep the philosophy pure and to keep Objectivists on the straight and narrow. When you see what happens to many philosophy students along their journey in Objectivism it has a certain appeal.

However, their approach if unopposed would stunt Objectivism's growth and kill needed new ideas before they get off the ground. Look at Objectivism from 1982 to 1989. That is what they are headed back to with the exodus of Tracinski. TAS and others should read and learn from ARI and learn how to teach the Objectivist corpus as an integrated whole, while still leaving room for students to think and grow on their own.

Jim,

I picked out Valliant and Hsieh because their ability to apply the principles of contextual distortionism is so apparent and almost pure. For this reason they are archetypal contextual distortionists and represent a third camp of Objectivists that don't quite fit anywhere. However, we all have this capacity within us. It is the bread and butter of sales, marketing, and lawyering (see Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, by R. B Cialondini). It is a powerful means of persuasion that easily bypasses an unsuspecting person's conscious awareness and judgement. There is no doubt that contextual distortionism and bullying is a subconscious means of social control that Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden applied in the NBI days and beyond. Although I do not know much about the current ARI culture, I doubt very much that contextual distortionism, and bullying, are not operating at least on a subconscious and intuitive level to affect social control.

Contextual distortionism and bullying are the psychological equivalents of fraud and force because their intent is to bypass the individual's conscious awareness and judgement. Because contextual distortionism and bullying tend to bypass the individual's conscious awareness and judgement, I don't think it is appropriate or ethical to knowingly apply these tools as a means of social manipulation and control in the context of a philosophical system that asserts awareness, volition, and independent judgement to be primary values. I do not assume it has been done knowingly. I see the use of these tools of social power to be the result of intuitive, subconscious processes that need to be made conscious and reevaluated. As with physical force and fraud, people need to be armed against contextual distortionism and bullying, and social contexts such as a forum like this should expose their use for what it is, whether at the level of forum discussions or at the level of philosophical movements. The ability to identify these tools of social power, to judge them, and to take actions against them is what is needed to defeat them, in ourselves or in someone else.

Imagine a world where people were not easily fooled by sales people, marketers, and lawyers. Now that's Atlantis!

Btw-- Thanks Jim, for your insights. I learn a lot from those more knowledgeable than I.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

Getting back to your ARI, TAS fusion thing, I think the important question is: if you agree with open system Objectivism, what do you do with it? In one of Kelley's Logical Structure of Objectivism classes, Kelley mentioned that Objectivism is like a skyscaper with the superstructure built. There's still a lot of offices to be built, furnished and decorated.

In Truth and Toleration (now Contested Legacy...), Kelley sketches a list of what is integral and basically, nonnegotiable in Objectivism. Well, you need some kind of principles to decide what is open to revision otherwise you are going to have people cutting into the load bearing beams of your superstructure.

My partial answer to this question is that you concentrate on the areas that have the most new empirical data pouring in. Large areas of epistemology will be rearranged as we get new information from psychology and neurology. Ethics will get some revision as psychology tells us more about how to flourish. A comprehensive theory of jurisprudence and intellectual property still needs to be created. We are seeing a new philosophy of history in its nascent stages with Tracinski's work.

However, many things will stay mostly unchanged because the information we have now is pretty much the same as it was when Objectivism was created. About those things, you really are putting yourself on the level of Rand and saying I'm right and she was wrong if you change something. It's possible but the burden of proof is very, very high.

Anyway, that's all for now. I'll revisit this later.

Jim

Edited by James Heaps-Nelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor,

Your comments only scratch the surface. I agree that the divide is much deeper than the 1968 break. But it is not about warring tribes using philosophy as a banner.

I don't know why you insist on honoring Perigo by using his catchwords, anyway. All that does is state that you believe that some kind of war is going on and identify him as one of the warriors on one of the sides, granting him an intellectual status he did not earn and does not deserve. There is no war. This is not a Hatfields and McCoys feud and I am not even a major player.

My own involvement in this affair is personal—like a proper individualist. I was in a really bad way when I read Barbara Branden's book. Because of the insights in that book, especially the unmasking of the myths surrounding Rand and Objectivism while retaining the core value of both, I saw something inside myself that gave me the strength to rise from the ashes and move on. I had been right in my youth about the way I saw reality—mistakes and all. I had been right because I had been using my own mind. I was wrong to adopt someone else's thinking for my own on a premise level, seduced by the myths to do so.

Opening my eyes to this at that moment in my life is a debt I cannot repay. I was literally near death.

When I came on the Objectivist scene, to my overwhelming delight, I met Barbara online. Her history in the public Objectivist culture goes back half a century, to the very founding. She has been a best seller. Mine goes back to 2005, although I had adopted the philosophy years earlier, and I have yet to write my first book. I am just a newcomer and a nobody so far.

What I saw in the Objectivist culture was appalling. I saw a small band of people representing a group of zealots invading the Internet environment wherever the Brandens were discussed to post voluminous posts trashing them in the vilest terms. They were so obnoxious that most people preferred not to engage them. What remained was a false impression that there were hoards of people and most were in agreement with the bile.

So to do my share and provide one small remedy to this, I (and Kat) established a single space in this new medium, the Internet forum, where that would not happen, where people could learn about the Brandens, and where the Brandens could discuss whatever they wished with people who wanted to discuss things with them. That was my manner of repaying a small portion of that debt.

One small space.

In contrast to how many spaces out there where trashing the Brandens is OK?

Then I read that boneheaded book, PARC, and saw every sort of lie and rhetorical gimmick used to raise the myths once again—in the name of Objectivism. And the case for those myths is so weak that the only way to do rev it up once again was to scapegoat those who were successful and had presented a different view of those myths to the public (the Brandens—then Chris Sciabarra). Well I know the price of those myths. I know what adopting them did to me.

And it is pretty clear what type of people are interested in selling those myths to the public, too. Look what they did to you. Then think about tribes and cults and guilt and self-recrimination and groveling.

Is that what Objectivism is? I say, "Hell no!" I also say those boneheads will never rule my mind. You decide about your own.

I stand by the truth. If I ever saw the Brandens lying and distorting facts like Valliant has done, I would take issue with them. But they don't. PARC certainly did not prove anything near that. All it did was present its own lies and distortions (in addition to some of Rand's journal entries, which are its only redeeming feature). Like I said, much is on the way to prove Valliant's integrity-twisting manipulations of rhetoric. Read Neil's article at the head of this thread for a good start. Then read some of the threads in the ARI Corner here on OL.

I have only one small space. I fully intend to use it to expose the mendacity of the intent and execution of PARC. If people wish to defend that book, there are plenty of places to do so. But not here.

I have no problem if a fact raised in PARC is discussed, regardless of the nature of that fact. I never have a problem with facts. But the boneheaded "spiritual rapist" kind of crap found in PARC and touted by brainwashed has no harbor on OL.

At this moment, my issue is not the divide in Objectivism. It is the nature of that book. Outside of the barefaced mendacity running throughout it in presenting facts, that book represents everything I despise in the way some people misuse Objectivism to try to justify their meanness of spirit and hatred of life—hatred of the benevolent universe—and hatred of people who do not let them rule their thinking. Objectivism is supposed to be used to glorify man through productive work, to glorify the beauty of the differences of individuals, not try to stir up people into a collective mob against other Objectivists or Objectivism-friendly people by lying about them and distorting their words.

All I have is just one small space and people who come here of their own free will.

Somehow, I think that is enough.

The truth never needs much more.

Michael

Michael,

I am well aware that this is more of a personal issue to you--and not one of acting as a cheer leader for one side over another. My own interest in Objectivism is of an intellectual sort, and not a matter that I can belong to a "group." Personal and intellectual growth--that's what it's about. And I do do NOT think of you as a tribal mentality by a long shot. But that there is a warring fraction out there is clear---the Atlas Society on the one side and ARI on the other—those who support the Brandens and those who don’t. I wish it weren’t so, but there it is out in the open to be observed by one and all.

I grant Perigo no "intellectual status". Perigo is a pompous squalor of a man who denies his own demons, (unlike yourself who has been very open about it) and he tries to project himself as an Objectivist leader—laughable as that is. There are no "leaders" in a philosophy of individualism. My caricature of him shows him more as he sees himself than how others see him—not that Pergio sees himself as a big spoiled baby wearing diapers, but in that he sees himself as being "bigger" than the blank figures that dance around him in awe and admiration. All the other touches were included for humor's sake.

-Victor

Edited by Victor Pross
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

This is heading in a very interesting direction, and I would really like to pursue it further, but I don't want to take this thread any further off course than it already is. This thread was intended to focus on the relationship between PARC, PAR, JD, MYWAR and reality. Integrating ARI and TAS might be going a little far astray.

I also want to get back to the "Intellectual debate: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" thread. I don't know if you have been following but we are starting to go into what I consider to be an interesting area of epistemology. Shayne has pointed out that I appear to have reached significantly different conclusions from Rand in ITOE. He's right, but not in the way he implies.

I would like to come back to the topic of integrating the structures and principles of ARI with the structures and principles of TAS in another thread. If you want to get it started I'm sure I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation. Otherwise I will hold off until I have pursued some other interests.

Paul

Edited by Paul Mawdsley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor,

This TAS/ARI war is a premise worth checking. There exists a Kelley/Peikoff break with some specific literature (Selective timeline and links of the Kelley-Peikoff schism), and, of course there are two organizations with different views.

But I went to the 2006 TAS Summer Seminar and met many Objectivists who also attend ARI lectures. I have read a great deal of criticism about both organizations, but hardly ever anything stated as a formal position of each organization. It seems to go like this: I (individual) identify with TAS so I criticize ARI, and vice-versa.

There is a policy of TAS being open to the works of ARI scholars and promoting the sales of many of those works. The reciprocal is not true, even of works like Evidence of the Senses by Kelley, which was in development and partially published when Rand was still alive.

Outside of things like airbrushing, some strange pronouncements and support of character attacks against individuals like with PARC, ARI also has some very cult-like qualities that show up in things like loyalty issues ("if you are a friend or supporter of so-and-so, you are our enemy"), but even this is not consistent. I have not seen this view at TAS.

From what I have perceived, ARI comes down hard on some of its own members by expelling and shunning them. It does not seem to be on a campaign to destroy TAS. TAS is definitely not on a campaign to destroy ARI. All the rest is personality issues and disagreements by individuals about policies.

I see no war.

If there is any basic conflict, it is that ARI wants to be the official voice of Objectivism and the very existence of TAS proves that it isn't. That seems to bother ARI more than it does TAS.

Michael

EDIT: Paul, you are correct. This belongs in a different thread. Maybe we should start one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now