Harriman/ARI and/or Peikoff rift?

[Ellen Stuttle]

I just said why he will never admit to this. However, it is plain as day that he supports the Bohmian interpretation, not because he has any understanding of the issues involved, but because (at least he thinks) it seems to mesh well with his philosophical prejudices. And, according to Harriman, what agrees (superficially, in my opinion) with his philosophical prejudices is what is factually true, and anything that does not is factually false.

I also think that Harriman doesn't understand the issues but just speaks with some favor of the Bohmian interpretation because of seeing a superficial mesh with his, Harriman's, philosophic views. As I recall - I might be misremembering, it's been awhile - he didn't positively support Bohm's interpretation, as in asserting that it's right, but instead said something about it's being promising.

Ironically, given that Bohm's interpretation superficially appeals to various Objectivists because it's described as "causal," Bohm's interpretation also superficially appeals to a whole lot of people into woo because they like the mystical sound of "the implicate order."

Ellen

[Selene]

Quick question: Have there ever been any Anthropogenic Global Warming supporters/proponents who have identified the results which would disprove their theories? I have yet to hear of any AGWers who specifically state which conditions would falsify their theories. In fact, whenever any merely logically implied conditions of disproof are found to exist, the goal posts are always then moved, even to the extent of renaming the theory itself to erase the obvious falseness of the previous name. (It makes you wonder if "Climate Change" would give way to "Climate Smothering Stagnation/Sameness" if all evidence of change disappeared).

J

Fact, not theory. Therefore all contrary results are not factual.

--Brant

so much for Popper

As William pointed out, a great thread, schisms and a Milhouse.

Therefore, I will throw in a Yogism:

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...

In practice there is."

Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra

Now, when I just ran a search to make sure I had the correct Yogi quote, I ran across this article which is way above my math knowledge. However, I thought some might get some amusement from it:

The title in itself got me lost!

Gödel’s Lost Letter and P=NP

Yogi Berra and Complexity Theory

Yogi Berra is a famous baseball player, who is probably better known for famous quotes than his stellar career. His quotes naturally fall into two categories: those that he said and those that he did not say. There is a book with the title: “I really didn’t say everything I said.”

Today Ken and I thought we would highlight a recent discussion that contains a result about quantum computation and its relationship to classical computation.

As Yogi has said: “It’s déjà vu all over again.” One reason we thought it would be okay to re-state the result is that we now are pretty sure that it is correct, and a paper is due out shortly. The work is joint with Ken and Atri. Another reason is that it builds and uses the framework of Ryan Williams’ recent result on his ACC circuit lower bound on nondeterministic exponential time.

A prediction:

Ryan’s framework for his proof will yield further insights into the structure of computation.

I knew I was in trouble when "Yogi Berra" was the only main phrase I understood!

http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/yogi-berra-and-complexity-theory/

[Backlighting]

Gotta love number 8.

[Selene]

Gotta love number 8.

Yep. Only human with ten (10) World Series rings.

His wife Carmen just passed away.

Yogi still thinks that Jackie Robinson was out stealin home in game one of that World Series.

“Jackie Steals Home”

1955 World Series

1955 World Series: Jackie Robinson of the Brooklyn Dodgers charges home plate and catcher Yogi Berra.

Famous photo of Jackie Robinson stealing home as Yogi Berra applies the tag. Photo, Mark Kauffman.

Umpire signals "safe" as Berra turns from the play.

1955: Jackie Robinson “safe,” says the umpire, as Yogi Berra argues the call. Photo, Grey Villet.

1955: Yogi Berra continues to show his displeasure with Robinson call, pressing his case, but to no avail.

Perhaps one of the most famous baseball plays with Yogi Berra came when he and Jackie Robinson tangled at home plate in September 1955. It was Game No. 1 of the 1955 World Series with the Yankees facing the Brooklyn Dodgers. The afternoon game that September 28th was being played at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx before a crowd of some 63,800 fans. Don Newcombe was the starting pitcher for the Dodgers. Newcombe had won 20 games that year. Whitey Ford, with an 18-7 record that year, was pitching for the Yankees.

In the early innings, the game had see-sawed back and forth with each side taking the lead. In the top of the 8th inning, with the Yankees ahead, 6-to-4, Carl Furillo came first to bat. He singled to center field, followed by Gil Hodges who flied out with Furillo remaining at 1st base. Jackie Robinson came next, and reached base on a ground ball error, sending Furillo to 3rd base and Robinson going to 2nd. Next up was Don Zimmer who hit a sacrifice fly, scoring Furillo and advancing Robinson to 3rd base. There were then two outs.

Jackie Robinson – known for his base running exploits – suddenly takes off from third base as unwary Yankee catcher Yogi Berra was getting set behind the plate with Dodger pinch hitter, Frank Kellert, coming to hit. Robinson by then was barreling down the third-base line heading for home, as Berra by now saw him coming and was preparing for action, waiting for the ball from pitcher Whitey Ford. As Berra receives the ball from Ford, Robinson goes into his slide at home plate. It’s a very close play.

The home plate umpire, Bill Summers, calls Robinson safe, and thereupon, Berra jumps up into the umpire’s face complaining about the call. Berra continues in a rage after the umpire, complaining to no avail as Robinson walks off and the score is recorded at 6-to-5. The Dodgers are now within one run of tying the game.

In the end, the Yankees would win the game. They had two homers from Joe Collins and one by rookie Elston Howard. Whitey Ford was the winning pitcher, with relief help in the ninth inning from Bob Grim. For the Dodgers that game, Carl Furillo and Duke Snider had homered.

The Dodgers, however, would win the World Series in Game 7, beating the Yanks, 2-0. For the first time in Series history, an MVP was selected—Johnny Podres, who won Games 3 and 7, pitching two complete games with a shut out in the latter game, also posting a series ERA of 1.00. But it is the controversy over the Robinson theft of home that lives in memory from that Series.

Several photographers captured the action of the game that day, including Robinson stealing home. Grey Villet captured the scene with a series of photographs, two of which are shown here (#’s 4 & 5). Mark Kauffman, a photographer with Sports Illustrated magazine also captured the scene in the 2nd photo above.

Brad Mangin, a San Francisco freelance sports photographer who specializes in shooting baseball with clients such as Sports Illustrated and Major League Baseball, rates the Kauffman photo – No. 2 in this sequence – as one of the top all-time World Series photos. Adds Mangin of the famous Robinson-Berra controversy:

…I have seen the video replay over and over and it is still hard to see if Jackie was safe or out. The only thing I definitely know about this play is it made a great picture that was captured so beautifully by Mark Kauffman of Sports Illustrated. One thing that makes this image so special to me is the fact that it is one of the first great telephoto pictures made with a long lens from the field level. Until this time most of the baseball pictures shot during the regular season and World Series with long lenses were made from overhead baskets with Big Bertha cameras.

Mangin adds that “the great peak action and expression on Jackie’s face, combined with the unique (for the time) low-to-the-ground angle, make this picture special.”

Yogi Berra, meanwhile, to this day, maintains that Jackie Robinson was “out” at home.

http://www.pophistorydig.com/?tag=jackie-robinson-steals-home <<<< nice little website...

[Selene]

'http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=9336883&topic_id=6479266&width=400&height=224&property=mlb'

hmm

http://m.mlb.com/video/v9336883/1955-ws-gn-1-robinson-steals-home

[Backlighting]

Thanks Adam for those links.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here is Robert Tracinski's take on what he calls "David Harrimans public defection from the Leonard Peikoff wing of the movement to the David Kelley wing."

The 1980s Called, and They Want Their Objectivism Back

Does Tracinski know something which hasn't been made public, or is he assuming from Harriman's showing up at the memorial celebration for Barbara and calling Kelley a "friend"?

Repeating an item I posted before which might not have been noticed.

link [*]

FYI everyone Harriman only became friends w Kelley *after* he split w Peikoff, so that whole "dishonest non-disclosure" line is moot.

That's by someone named Brad Aisa. I don't know who he is, or where he got his information. If he's right, looks like either Harriman or Kelley sent out feelers.

Aisa's indication is that there was a falling out between Harriman and Peikoff preceding a Harriman-Kelley connect.

Ellen

* The link isn't working at this time. The post is dated March 27 at 5:24 pm, and is currently on the next-to-last page.

[Brant Gaede]

From reading this thread it would seem that with one living exception there is no living within the context of explicated Objectivist philosophy qua morality and proper behavior. Living with integrity is another matter. The exception seems to be Leonard Peikoff, all others one way or another are to be either contemned if not condemned, if not now, soon or eventually. (The way out is not to keep your mouth shut for you'll be got for that.) Peikoff is the exception for only he is priviledged to drag the philosophy around making sure at all times he's still wearing it without contradicting it.

--Brant

a philosophy for living on earth

[jts]

From reading this thread it would seem that with one living exception there is no living within the context of explicated Objectivist philosophy qua morality and proper behavior. Living with integrity is another matter. The exception seems to be Leonard Peikoff, all others one way or another are to be either contemned if not condemned, if not now, soon or eventually. (The way out is not to keep your mouth shut for you'll be got for that.) Peikoff is the exception for only he is priviledged to drag the philosophy around making sure at all times he's still wearing it without contradicting it.

--Brant

a philosophy for living on earth

There is no God but Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff is the Messenger of Ayn Rand.

[Brant Gaede]

From reading this thread it would seem that with one living exception there is no living within the context of explicated Objectivist philosophy qua morality and proper behavior. Living with integrity is another matter. The exception seems to be Leonard Peikoff, all others one way or another are to be either contemned if not condemned, if not now, soon or eventually. (The way out is not to keep your mouth shut for you'll be got for that.) Peikoff is the exception for only he is priviledged to drag the philosophy around making sure at all times he's still wearing it without contradicting it.

--Brant

a philosophy for living on earth

There is no God but Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff is the Messenger of Ayn Rand.

And I thought I was the only one who knew this.

--Brant

my estimation of the human race is now in the "UP" elevator

[tmj]

Who is Ayn Rand?

[Brant Gaede]

Now that's the question!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I went to Brad Aisa's Facebook page to learn more about him. He lives in Boulder, CO, which got me to wondering about Diana Hsieh since she's from those parts. I looked at a few photos and, yup, it looks like he's friends with her.

There is quite a grapevine around her, so that is probably where his info came from (that grapevine, not necessarily her).

But the antenna wiggles., If anyone has followed her trajectory, this can be entertaining in a soap-opera kind of way.

Michael

[Backlighting]

Who is Ayn Rand?

Who is John Galt?

[PDS]

It is worth recalling that Howard Roark never referred to himself as an Objectivist, nor did he take a position on whether Objectivism is an open or a closed system.

How could this be?

It is almost as if it is, in principle, possible to live a life of integrity, in fidelity to reality, enjoyably so at that, and in pursuit of one's rational self interest--all without the benefits or hazards of a Self-Identifying Label.

Imagine that.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Who is John Galt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt_%28novelist%29

Who is Mary Sue?

[Brant Gaede]

Who is John Galt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt_%28novelist%29

Who is Mary Sue?

Mary Sue got married, so she's now someone else.

--Brant

or: Mary Sue got down tonight . . . !

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Another note about David Harriman.

Let's not forget that he is the Peikoff-sanctioned editor of:

The Journals of Ayn Rand

So his name is etched indelibly into Rand's from the ARI perspective irrespective of what happens to him.

If he does get excommunicated, I wonder what they will do about this. The same thing they did with Nathaniel's essays in VOS and CUI?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Another note about David Harriman.

Let's not forget that he is the Peikoff-sanctioned editor of:

The Journals of Ayn Rand

So his name is etched indelibly into Rand's from the ARI perspective irrespective of what happens to him.

If he does get excommunicated, I wonder what they will do about this. The same thing they did with Nathaniel's essays in VOS and CUI?

Michael

Aren't those essays still in the books? And shouldn't The Journals of Ayn Rand be thrown away anyway?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I should have included the phrase word "i.e., nothing" after my rhetorical question about NB.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

Thanks re Brad Aisa (post #163).

I went to Diana's blog - haven't been there in "ages"; the appearance is quite changed.

Searching the site, I didn't find any reference to Harriman more recent than 2010.

Nor did Diana make any comment except "Hear, hear!" on the Epstein thread (the 17th post, March 20 at 7:06 am).

I bet that Diana has been keenly attentive to glean any information she could - considering that it was the Harriman/McCaskey controversy which eliminated whatever prospects she'd had of a position at ARI.

But best I could tell, she hasn't said anything publicly pertaining to Harriman.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

And shouldn't The Journals of Ayn Rand be thrown away anyway?

Yikes, NO!!!!

That caution is needed in reading them hardly means that they're of no value. They aren't made up whole cloth.

What should happen with the Journals is to have them redone, and with vetting for accuracy by two or more professional proofreaders unconnected with ARI.

I expect that that's what will be done eventually, since there are people connected with ARI who are unhappy about not quite knowing what's been altered in them and what hasn't.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

And shouldn't The Journals of Ayn Rand be thrown away anyway?

Yikes, NO!!!!

That caution is needed in reading them hardly means that they're of no value. They aren't made up whole cloth.

What should happen with the Journals is to have them redone, and with vetting for accuracy by two or more professional proofreaders unconnected with ARI.

I expect that that's what will be done eventually, since there are people connected with ARI who are unhappy about not quite knowing what's been altered in them and what hasn't.

Ellen

Okay. Retain a copy for scholarship's lack of scholarship reference.

--Brant

but I want the real thing, not this corruption for public use; Leonard Peikoff's knowledge of real scholarship is on a par of his knowledge of physics and current events' evaluations (he seems to do a little better with the philosophy of Ayn Rand as such, though she never saw his book)

[anthony]

It is worth recalling that Howard Roark never referred to himself as an Objectivist, nor did he take a position on whether Objectivism is an open or a closed system.

How could this be?

It is almost as if it is, in principle, possible to live a life of integrity, in fidelity to reality, enjoyably so at that, and in pursuit of one's rational self interest--all without the benefits or hazards of a Self-Identifying Label.

Imagine that.

Right, who'd argue with that? What's the point of the exercise, after all?

Beyond Objectivism.

Another Label just cropped up:

"Meta-Objectivist".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I went to Diana's blog - haven't been there in "ages"; the appearance is quite changed.

Searching the site, I didn't find any reference to Harriman more recent than 2010.

Nor did Diana make any comment except "Hear, hear!" on the Epstein thread (the 17th post, March 20 at 7:06 am).

I bet that Diana has been keenly attentive to glean any information she could - considering that it was the Harriman/McCaskey controversy which eliminated whatever prospects she'd had of a position at ARI.

Ellen,

Diana Hsieh had a little more to say on Facebook here (second and third post).

I agree she has been burned by talking too much in public about INNER CIRCLE folks, but I seriously doubt she stopped talking about them.

She has a few autoresponder lists and probably some private social media groups in the little structure she set up. I imagine the current Harriman affair is a topic somewhere in there.

On another issue, if you want to see a perfect example of fundy cult-like behavior at the comical stereotype level (using the Harriman affair as a prompt), look at this thread and what they did to a poor dude named Andrei.

What people like Andrei don't get (and there is no reason for them to get it until they see it for themselves) is that INNER CIRCLE for cult-minded people is by invitation only.

Granted, the INNER CIRCLE preaches you should use your mind in a first-hand way, but you will not be welcome among those people for actually wanting to see things for yourself before judging. You have to wait for the invitation, and that means you need to be vetted. And that means if you don't hate who they hate, you cannot be among them.

If you try anyway, they will eat you.

They eat the innocent because that's what they do. Law of identity.

This is unadulterated tribalism in its raw magnificence.

Michael