New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Brant Gaede]

George,

The damndest thing...

I just felt a thrill go up my leg...

Michael

I must confess to being deeply disappointed in you and other OLers with a sense of humor. When I read your initial post, the similarly between "Speicher" and "Sphincter" leapt out at me like big tits in a Russ Meyer flick. (Only older guys who used to frequent One-Dollar-Per-Car-Drive-In-Theaters will appreciate this reference.) But I had someplace to go, and by the time I returned four hours later, I figured that several posters would have beaten me to the punch. Imagine my surprise when I learned that the obvious had remained unstated.

We can't compete with you, George; you are the master--masher.

--Brant

[PDS]

Since Betsy Speicher does not want her statement on Robert Tracinski's "Anthemgate" to be published or forwarded without her permission, I'll just paraphrase it, as closely as I can so that it can be subject to the public analysis and criticism that she was hoping to avoid in the name of promoting rational discourse.

In her first paragraph she says something on the order of how Robert Tracinski is an extraordinary journalist who always sticks to the facts and that his recently published controversial article is no exception.

Then she supplies the link to his article criticizing Piekoff: http://www.intellect...cle.php?id=1234

Speicher then says that most of what Tracinski cites are matters she has known about for years. That what he has done, in making them public for the first time, is provide links to original sources and a context which makes them understandable. She urges concerned Objectivists to read Tracinski's article and the links he provides.

She says that while she agrees with the facts Tracinski presents, she seriously disagrees with some of the major conclusions he draws from them.

She says that her biggest disagreement is with the subtitle "The Objectivist Movement Commits Suicide." That although there have been recent controversies among Objectivists and some of them may be harmful, she doesn't think Objectivism as a philosophical movement or ARI as an institution has been fatally, or even seriously, wounded. And that it would not be a good thing if it were.

She says that while ARI and its activities are not the ONLY way to spread Objectivism, she believes that it is definitely a major and necessary institution. That it represents a gathering of money and talent that can accomplish worthy goals on a scale that individuals and small groups cannot possibly do. She asks whether anything less than ARI could spread Objectivism as effectively as ARI's essay contests, free books to teachers, OAC, media department, and its support of campus clubs and scholars.

She asks whether ARI stifles creativity and intellectual independence as Tracinski claims and answers that in a way, it does -- and that this is a "GOOD thing." [Oh dear.] She says that ARI's mission is -- or should be -- to preserve, teach, and promote Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. And that to preserve Ayn Rand's legacy, ARI has to LIMIT themselves to the philosophy and ideas she ACTUALLY supported and not teach or promote anything else or in addition to that, no matter how true, worthy, or consistent it is with Objectivism. [They should limit themselves to ads and photocopying?] She adds that if someone was inspired by Ayn Rand and, using methods that conformed to her epistemology, discovered a cure for cancer, that would be wonderful, but it should not be taught or promoted with ARI resources.

She says that those accepting ARI's support should conform to ARI's mission in the same way people working for a large corporation should support the company's goals as set out by upper management. [sigh.] She says that this is necessary and proper for the corporation -- or for ARI -- to do its job. That a young person just starting out may join a corporation to learn the business or he may become an OAC student to learn Objectivism. That both thereby acquire support, education, and guidance and that is very important in the beginning. That after a while, the young employee may seek new opportunities or want to work in a new direction incompatible with the corporation's goals, so he will leave the company to work elsewhere or to start his own business. In likewise manner, she concludes, an OAC student may eventually have an independent career in academia, do research and writing in areas of his personal interest, and/or expand or use Ayn Rand's ideas in ways that are outside the scope of ARI's concerns. And that this "is fine too."

She says she thinks ARI got into trouble when they DID NOT limit themselves to preserving, teaching, and promoting the philosophy of Ayn Rand and began teaching and promoting ideas that Ayn Rand did not advocate and never endorsed. That these include Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis and Peikoff's lectures and Harriman's book on induction. That these may be worthy and ground-breaking, but they are NOT Objectivism and should not be treated as such. [Me: what difference does it make whether they are "treated as Objectivism" or not? As long as the author doesn't claim "these are the thoughts that were in Ayn Rand's head, and I'm merely transcribing them" (as Peikoff did in his book on Objectivism)?] She asserts that if these new ideas should prove false or incompatible with Ayn Rand's, presenting them as "Objectivist" could harm the spread of Ayn Rand's actual ideas in the same way that the medieval Scholastics' co-opting and misrepresenting Aristotle harmed Aristotle's reputation. [Oh dear. If only we had means of communication and debate that were unavailable to the medievals.]

Speicher says that ARI's decision to include and support these new ideas along with Ayn Rand's was a mistake. [she says nothing about their dogmatic approach, its manifestations or genesis, and whether the "mistake" of fostering the development of non-Rand ideas would have been a mistake without the dogmatism.] She says that perhaps it was a mistake the board members were aware of, did not want to make, but did not have much choice about. She observes that Leonard Peikoff advanced and promoted these ideas and HE considered them part of Objectivism and refers to Peikoff's web site (http://tinyurl.com/2c96lye), where he writes that his lectures on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" "present, for the first time, the OBJECTIVIST solution to the problem of induction..."

She writes that Leonard Peikoff's views cannot be ignored or dismissed. [No matter how loony or unintelligible they get, presumably.] That in addition to the respect he deserves based on his enormous contributions to Objectivism [only the Rand-approved portion of Peikoff?], HE CONTROLS THE ACCESS TO, AND USE OF, AYN RAND'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE USE OF HER NAME. [Emphasis mine. Gee, no wonder his views can't be ignored.] That ARI cannot even call itself the "Ayn Rand" Institute without Peikoff's permission. That, thus, when Peikoff reminded Arline Mann "I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism," she doesn't regard it as simply an appeal to authority but as a reminder that without Peikoff's approval and consent, ARI could not function at all. [Golly, isn't it obviously BOTH?]

According to Speicher, if she were a board member faced with the choice to support Peikoff's ideas as a part of Objectivism or to accede to his demands, she might find it necessary to accommodate him even if she did not agree [intellectual honesty and independence having been demoted as virtues]. She might consider it one of those things, like complying with government regulations, that one has to do to stay in business and continue to do genuinely important and valuable things. [Peikoff as government bureaucrat whom one must obey. Because obeying his dictates "advances Objectivism," whatever THAT is. Okay.]

Speicher says that the bottom line is that the current controversy is not a good thing, but it is not fatal or suicidal. In her view, ARI, despite its support for ideas that she does not consider properly "Objectivist" [in the sense of being Ayn Rand's ideas or Ayn-Rand-approved ideas] offers too much of genuine value to her and to kindred Objectivists, to abandon it now. She expects that enough Objectivists will agree and continue to support the good work of ARI -- as well as the work of independent Objectivists, like Robert Tracinski, John McCaskey, and others, who may challenge or disagree with some of ARI's positions and actions. [so both the dependent, self-abnegating Objectivists and independent Objectivists can BOTH thrive! We can all get along! At least until the next undeconstructable loony Peikovian dictat! Woo hoo!] The end.

[There's a giant equivocation in all this. If BS thinks it would be good to have an organization that does nothing but publicize Rand's work, and if ARI can't do anything beyond that without becoming destructively dogmatic thanks to Peikoff's irrational rule, a view that has been argued on this board, fine. (I think it should just dissolve and hire a publicist to promote Rand's work given its irremediable dogmatism, but that it's certainly possible for an organization to foster discussion and application of rational-egoist-individualist work without the dogmatism. There are schools and journals and things. All one would have to do is steer clear of this notion that it's so important to equate the term "Objectivist" with "printout of what's in AR's mind" [she's dead, by the way], obey the stifling nonsensical dictats of authority figures like Peikoff, etc.) But BS is also arguing that ARI should be preserved and supported even though it has gone far beyond this mission and by her own admission requires "young" (and not-so-young) thinkers and scholars to subordinate their intellectual understanding and public statements to ARIan rule.

[Ergo, in her view, being dependent-minded and irrational is completely consistent with the values of promoting independent-mindedness and rationality (albeit perhaps not actually BEING independent-minded and rational). Is that the implication of a philosophy of rational individualism, let alone law-of-identity-ism? BS thinks the great danger is that the world will get the wrong view of Rand's ideas. Um, people have been getting the wrong view of philosophers' ideas since Thales argued that the basic stuff of reality is green cheese. Let's pray Rand doesn't go out of print and then comes back to the West via bin-Laden-approved Islamic mis-translation! No, the not-so-great and waning danger is that obsequious yes men in the name of a philosophy of rational individualism will be forever teaching other allegedly independent-minded rational men to be obsequious yes-men and touting this as consistent with the idea of being independent-minded and rational.

[i agree with BS that "ARI stifles creativity and intellectual independence." I don't agree that this is so swell when she says it's swell, though I agree with her that it's not-swell when she implies that it's not-swell. Well. I would add that BS, who makes a gigantic concession and then stifles the obvious conclusion, is a fellow stifler, and I suspect that her way of publishing but not-publishing her BS will not be a successful way of deluding the select recipients and those to whom they whisper confidential information into believing that acceding to the process of turning alleged champions of independent thought into regimented drones is acceptable, despite the problems with it, so long as the alleged "benefits" of being a hypocritical drone exceed the Rand-documented costs. Gee, it's stifling in here. Somebody open the window.]

So long as the above is indeed a paraphrase and not significantly verbatim, Speicher has no copyright grounds to demand that it be taken down from here. Unless she entered into some sort of contract with Starbuckle, she has no recourse their either, and even if Speicher did have a valid contract with her readers, it would not bind this website or third parties.

Any actions the moderator takes here would be courtesies.

Courtesies.

Agreed. She has no intellectual property rights in prohibiting another's paraphrase, or parody. The US Supreme Court has ruled this way in the Hustler/Falwell case.

[Peter]

Xray wrote"

I first came across the term "kerfuffle" by an internet correspondent of Scottish/Irish origin who used it. It seems to be quite old actually:

end quote

Could you look up "jack wagon," for me? As in, "You jack wagon!"

Peter

[Selene]

Xray wrote"

I first came across the term "kerfuffle" by an internet correspondent of Scottish/Irish origin who used it. It seems to be quite old actually:

end quote

Could you look up "jack wagon," for me? As in, "You jack wagon!"

Peter

Peter:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jack%20wagon'>http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jack%20wagon

http://www.urbandictionary.com/ <<<<use the Urban Dictionary for that type of search, even a Jack Wagon knows that!

Adam

[Peter]

Xray quoted The Urban Dictionary:

Jack Wagon:

Lame, whiney, pathetic, take it in the ass sissy punk looking for a pity party.

Quit crying and grow a pair, you little jack wagon!

End quote

Thanks Angela. I saw that Geico commercial but I could not find the words in the dictionary. Very brave of you to have said that. What will your class think if you talk that way in front of them, like the Drill Sergeant therapist?

Peter

No reply necessary.

[Xray]

Xray quoted The Urban Dictionary:

Jack Wagon:

Lame, whiney, pathetic, take it in the ass sissy punk looking for a pity party.

Quit crying and grow a pair, you little jack wagon!

End quote

Thanks Angela. I saw that Geico commercial but I could not find the words in the dictionary. Very brave of you to have said that. What will your class think if you talk that way in front of them, like the Drill Sergeant therapist?

Peter

No reply necessary.

Peter,

Selene will be thrilled when you call him "Angela".

For it was he who posted the Urban Dictionary quote, not me.

As for the origin of "jack wagon", I found this here:

http://www.webanswers.com/misc/what-is-a-jack-wagon-9a4409

What is a jack wagon?

"Freight wagon or Chuck wagon (which held supplies) typically pulled by mules. Usually the slowest wagon in a wagon train. Worst job in a wagon train, being at the back, eating all the dust, dirt and smell from the front. Mules are identified as Jacks or Jenny depending on the sex of the mule." (end quote)

Hope this helps.

Angela

Ted Keer, # 81:

It's only Peikoff who is trying to identify his opinion with "official Objectivsm." McCaskey is not in the role of Luther here, trying to establish his own church. He is more like Galileo, saying eppur si muove, but a bit more forcefully, and willing to face the consequences.

E dove si muove l'Oggetivismo? What do you think about the future of Objectivism, whose founder insisted that one could not choose some elements of her philosophy and discard others.

But why would that not be possible?

Edited October 13, 2010 by Xray

[kiaer.ts]

Ted Keer, # 81:

It's only Peikoff who is trying to identify his opinion with "official Objectivsm." McCaskey is not in the role of Luther here, trying to establish his own church. He is more like Galileo, saying eppur si muove, but a bit more forcefully, and willing to face the consequences.

E dove si muove l'Oggetivismo? What do you think about the future of Objectivism, whose founder insisted that one could not choose some elements of her philosophy and discard others.

But why would that not be possible?

I don't concern myself with Rand's opinions or proprietary concerns. I call myself an Objectivist because it is the most accurate description of my views and their origins and validation. I am an adult. I can defend every position I hold in my own words.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Ted Keer

[PDS]

XRay: the dilemma seems to be one of branding.

Most normal people, to the extent they have a basic understanding of and sympathy for Objectivism, recognize that is merely a name of a system of thought more or less consistent with common sense and reality. These same people implicitly assume that "Objectivism" has as many facets as reality.

Closed system types seem to think of Objectivism as something more akin to Amway, Dell, or the like: i.e., they believe Objectivism is a proper noun, or type of "brand", and can only be what Ayn Rand said it was, and the last she said it, at that. If you are employed by Amway, after all, you can only sell Amway products. Any other sales would have to be beneath the table, so to speak, and, not irrelevantly, immoral and illegal.

This distinction is what prohibits picking and choosing.

Frankly, I think it would be much easier on everyone if those outside the ARI orbit simply called themselves Neo-Objectivists, or some such. Then nobody would have anything to bitch about. But then again, having been away from movement Objectivism for at least 20 years until rather recently, and having observed the flame and other kinds of wars over this distinction, it appears that there is one thing Objectivists enjoy more than just about anything else--and that is bitching about one another.

Edited October 13, 2010 by PDS

[Robert Campbell]

Travis Norsen's contribution to the comments at NoodleFood is worthy of some attention:

http://blog.dianahsi...omment-86477002

I must be the "former OGC student" mentioned by Mike and Brandon. I've also received some questions about this event by email and I think people are right to see it as relevant to the current situation with McCaskey, so let me share the relevant facts so people can judge for themselves what its relevance is (if any).

First some background: I took the undergraduate course taught then by Gary Hull ("UPAR") in 95-96, then was a student in various OGC courses between 96 and 2001. I was a "scholarship student" at the 1997 and 1999 summer conferences, and was an invited speaker in 2001. I also participated in a 2001 or 2002 "confusion paper" session with Dr. Peikoff. So from 1995 until about 2002 I was evidently regarded as a promising student by ARI and certainly felt that I had a good relationship with the Institute. But about 2002, the same year I finished my PhD in physics and began a career as a college physics professor, I started to butt heads with Dave Harriman about various issues involving physics and the history and philosophy of science.

In the following years, Dr. Peikoff's 2002-3 lectures on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" (IPP) became one of the central topics leading to escalating tensions between Dave and myself. I thought there were serious problems with the science presented in that course (and how it was used to ground philosophical conclusions) and also problematic ambiguities, inconsistencies, and omissions in Dr. Peikoff's philosophical account of (even) "first-level inductions." (The specific content of my objections can be read in my recent amazon.com review of Harriman's book, The Logical Leap. Many of the issues I raise in that review are issues I raised with Dave privately more than 5 years ago now.) Between 2001 and 2005, my relations with Dave were on-again off-again. He denounced me publicly at least once during this period, and more often privately. But we somehow managed to get back on pseudo-cordial terms several times. He denounced me for the final time in 2005, after I tried one more time to raise some questions about Dr. Peikoff's theory of induction and the associated lecture course; I haven't communicated with him since.

Also during this period from 2001-2005, I submitted several proposals to teach summer conference courses (on the history and philosophy of quantum physics). All of these proposals were rejected, and I have reason to believe that this was because I was not approved of by Harriman. (Nothing else had changed from the 1995-2001 period, except I was by then eminently more qualified to teach such courses.) So by 2006 I was completely fed up with Harriman in particular and ARI in general (for evidently allowing my disagreements with him to exclude me) and decided not to waste my time any longer trying to be involved in the summer conferences.

This was my state of mind when, in August of 2006, I posted – anonymously -- some comments on this very blog in response to what amounted to an advertisement for Peikoff's IPP course. The comments can be viewed here:

http://www.dianahsie...427752440018815

Looking back at those comments now, I can stand by the content of what I said, but am embarrassed by several aspects of them: my tone was inappropriately hostile, it was wrong to refer to conversations I'd had with others while posting anonymously, and in general this just wasn't the right way to make my views about Peikoff's course (which views I had by then shared in detail privately not only with Harriman but with many Objectivist friends) public.

Now, ironically, during this same period, a dear friend convinced me to consider trying one last time to submit an OCON course proposal; in particular I was assured that, this time, such a proposal would receive a fair hearing. So, despite doubting that a proposal by me could possibly be accepted, I did end up submitting something. To my pleasure and surprise, it was accepted, and so I was slated to teach a course at the summer 2007 conference (in Colorado). But then, a couple months later (in December of 2006), I was informed by ARI that they were withdrawing the invitation for me to speak, based on the "views on induction generally and on Dr. Peikoff's lectures more specifically" that I had posted here.

It was never made clear to me whether the dis-invitation was based on the tone (or some other admittedly inappropriate aspect) of those posts, or on the mere fact that I had disagreed with and/or expressed disappointment about Peikoff's ideas about induction, or some combination of these, or what. It should be understood that Dr. Peikoff was himself the keynote speaker at the 2007 conference. So I think ARI's decision to strike me from the program may have been perfectly reasonable, in that I had in effect rudely snubbed the keynote speaker.

Nevertheless, as a whole, it seems clear that disagreement with – or even just raising critical questions about – Peikoff's and/or Harriman's views on such things as induction created a kind of barrier between ARI and me. This was cemented in a brief phone conversation I had with Dr. Brook after my disinvitation, in which he told me that, going forward, ARI had no interest in having any relationship with me because they already had a physics person (meaning Harriman) that they were happy with.

There are other small details that support my contentions here (for example, I had been removed from the distribution list for the speaker solicitation memo that went out in 2006 so my above-mentioned friend had to arrange for it to be sent to me late, after the normal submission deadline, and for me to get a deadline extension/exception). But the above contains the essential facts of my history with ARI and in particular the notable "cooling" between 1995-2002 and 2002-present which I believe resulted primarily if not exclusively from my criticisms of the joint Peikoff/Harriman induction work.

So was I, as Mike put it, "barred from speaking at OCON" -- as a kind of permanent policy? I don't know for sure; I haven't submitted a proposal since this episode. Would I be considered ineligible for, say, a grant from Anthem on the grounds that I have been denounced by Harriman and have now definitely gone fully on the record about my disagreements/disappointments with the Logical Leap? I don't know. It would, as Mike suggested, be a good question for the OAC representatives.

The passages I've put in bold are particularly interesting. By the end of 2006, the ARI leadership had effectively granted David Harriman a monopoly concession, as far as physics is concerned.

Dr. Norsen's anonymous comments appeared on NoodleFood in August 2006, at a time when Diana Hsieh was sucking up to Leonard Peikoff. She had already picked up Peikoff's anti-gay rhetoric and, a couple of months later, would be defending his fatwa to vote Democratic—and receiving a public commendation from Amy Peikoff.

And her reaction to Norsen's anonymous comments was quite negative.

Indeed, one is entitled to wonder whether she dropped the dime on Dr. Norsen to persons higher up at the Ayn Rand Institute. Somebody did. Otherwise those anonymous NoodleFood comments could not have been cited as grounds for withdrawing his invitation to speak at OCON.

Robert Campbell

[George H. Smith]

While going through some of the comments on Hsieh's blog, I ran across this lecture by David Harriman, The Crisis in Physics -- and Its Cause. .

My apologies if this link has been posted before.

Ghs

[Starbuckle]

Xray wrote: "What do you think about the future of Objectivism, whose founder insisted that one could not choose some elements of her philosophy and discard others? But why would that not be possible?"

Why wouldn't it, indeed? In one discussion, Nathaniel Branden pointed out that simply because Rand implied thereby that she was infallible in sketching her philosophy doesn't mean that she was. In another place, he pointed out that the controversy over what one may call "Objectivism" is mere pedantry. Objectivism could be regarded as the "ideas of Ayn Rand" or it could be regarded as a general framework of reason and egoism in which other thinkers might operate.

There are two questions here, first, what it means to properly interpret Rand's work and second, what it means to properly make one's own case for any proposition. If one is doing the latter, one doesn't normally have to preface one's argument with a declaration, "Oh by the way, I am speaking only for myself," although sometimes one might do that if the context might suggest that one is speaking as a representative of an organization, or there's a concern about litigation, or some such thing. This is why, whatever legitimate criticisms may have been made of the course taken by IOS/TOC/TAC, all the complaints that an IOS/TOC/TAC-published author was "misrepresenting Objectivism and/or Ayn Rand" whenever he made an argument that deviated in any respect from officially approved orthodox Objectivist works were so absurd. Nobody at IOS/TOC/TAC claimed to "speaking for" Objectivism-as-understood-by-Rand, although they sometimes proposed to interpret what Rand argued. When did Rand ever preface any work of hers with the warning, "I am speaking only for myself, not for Aristotle"?

On the other hand, if one is writing a work that interprets Rand's work, that would be clear enough too. There would be quotations and paraphrases. Sentences that began, "Rand argued x, y, z, and so forth. This is what she called the conceptual common denominator. Now, in my view, the CCD is neither conceptual, nor common, nor denominative, because...." How hard is that? "Rand said this. But I say that." (Of course, any incompetent boob can mangle a presentation of Rand's ideas, and many have. Cf. most of the major reviews of Atlas Shrugged when it came out. It's the job of honest readers and critics to salvage things, and many have done that too.)

So what does it mean to demand that an outfit promoting Rand's ideas and approach "limit themselves to preserving, teaching, and promoting the philosophy of Ayn Rand" and eschew everything non-AR-embalming? Why would it be necessary?

There is no reason whatever (assuming no occluding and distortive Factor X) that one couldn't have, say, two main departments in an organization devoted to spreading Rand's ideas, one geared to merely publicizing Rand's work-as-is, the other to sponsoring and fostering scholarship and commentary influenced by Rand's work. But what one couldn't have is what BS seems to favor, students and scholars writing pseudo-independent-minded work, accepting academic training from ARI honchos about how reason is the only absolute, and so forth, under terms according to which students and scholars are obliged to stunt or pervert their mental understanding from the get-go in order to conform to a demand to do nothing beyond "preserving, teaching, and promoting the philosophy of Ayn Rand [and/or Peikoff and/or Harriman; cf. Campbell's citation in this thread of the testimony of a Harriman skeptic booted from ARI seminars for his trouble]." According to BS, Rand's ideas about reason, integrity and independence are so decrepit that only a chronic policy of blind obedience, self-betrayal and dependence will be adequate to the task of fulfilling an organization's mission of spreading the opposite of these; otherwise, Objectivism might sink beneath the intellectual seas for a thousand years, being as how dumb people are.

But no writer's work would ever be "confused with Objectivism" and hence "give the wrong idea of Objectivism" if there were never any slightest suggestion that the writer "speaks for Objectivism." An organization promoting Randian or neo-Randian ideas might still end up severing relationships with associates deemed to have radically lost their way a la the rational-egoist mission, just as the Cato Institute would drop a contributing editor gone commie; but the mere fact of substantive disagreement with the muckamuck-in-chief who does not believe the substance of the disagreement to be even relevant would not be even marginally dispositive.

But of course, Factor X—that is, Schwartzian-Binswangerian-Peikovian-style dogmatism—does indeed animate ARI's founders and managers. And not only with respect to ARI itself but also with respect to ANY OTHER organization or publication that dares discuss Rand's ideas, whether badly, well or both. That's why Andy Bernstein had to walk around in the desert in ashes and sackcloth for forty days and forty nights after making some small comment in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in defense of his own self, his mere ego. Could anybody, including BS, pretend that there was any confusion whatever about whether either the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies or any of its writers had been pretending to be "spokesman for Objectivism" or presenting any but their own views in their analyses of Rand's art and ideas? (Amusingly, Bernstein, in his maxima mea culpa, admitted that all that he had known about JOARS prior to his small contribution was that its editor, Chris Sciabarra, had contended in a book that Rand was a member of "the Hegelian" school. That's all!! That's ALL he knew about it!!!!)

And who was it who called him out on this conspicuous despicableness? Who was it went to the special trouble of especially contacting Andrew Bernstein on this issue, to find out, you know, whether the scholar had any "explanation" for a comment in a scholarly journal?

Well, you're ahead of me. Yes, it was Betsy Speicher! BS, the great new friend of the independent Objectivist as happy complement to the dependent Objectivist, who had no compunction about soliciting and relaying Bernstein's self-scourging sentiments to Objectiveland (reprinted at http://ariwatch.com/WhosWho.htm), including Bernstein's fatuous recommendation of a "complete repudiation and boycott of this journal and of any and all of Mr. Sciabarra’s work." (Just for the record, lest anybody confuse my view with that of anybody else, when I read JOARS I find that some articles are great, others so-so, and others crap; also that it has improved over the years. And let me just add that I would repudiate irrevocably anybody who irrevocably repudiates any and all of Sciabarra's work, and I would BOYCOTT them too...unless I wanted to read something they wrote in order to find out what they wrote...and only then would I NOT boycott them...irrevocably...but in all other cases I WOULD boycott them and IRREVOCABLY and FOREVER AND EVER...AND EVER.)

BS may even have felt especially virtuous about her role in eliciting Bernstein's bit of self-abasing sycophancy, what a pivotal role she played in the drama. How does she feel about it now?

Edited October 14, 2010 by Starbuckle

[9thdoctor]

Indeed, one is entitled to wonder whether she dropped the dime on Dr. Norsen to persons higher up at the Ayn Rand Institute. Somebody did.

In the older thread he does say, when challenged by Comrade Sonia about his anonymity, that he will email her privately and identify himself. Presumably he hadn’t read “Dialectical Dishonesty”, or perhaps he did, but never read The Scorpion and the Frog. I feel sure a deficiency in his reading is to blame. In any event, I see no need to consult William of Ockham to figure this one out.

While going through some of the comments on Hsieh's blog, I ran across this lecture by David Harriman, The Crisis in Physics -- and Its Cause. .

My apologies if this link has been posted before.

Ghs

I’ve posted it before, there’s been discussion, I have no idea what thread though.

[9thdoctor]

(reprinted at http://ariwatch.com/WhosWho.htm)

I haven’t seen that page before, I just skimmed it and he dismisses South Park and Nabokov with pseudo-ARIan aplomb. Worse than Binswanger on Ulysses. Thumbs down.

The part about McCaskey is obviously new, the rest doesn’t look it though.

Well, no one bats a thousand.

BTW I emailed Betsy requesting her "Anthemgate Statement", she replied with some unpleasant words about Starbuckle, Barbara Branden, and "the OL crowd" to round out her refusal.

[Dennis Hardin]

Robert Tracinski:

...David Kelley, who split from Peikoff twenty years ago under the banner of promoting a more "tolerant" version of Objectivism…was reacting, in part, to the same phenomenon—elements of dogmatism in the Objectivist movement...

Travis Norsen:

...It was never made clear to me whether the dis-invitation [by OCON] was based on the tone (or some other admittedly inappropriate aspect) of those posts, or on the mere fact that I had disagreed with and/or expressed disappointment about Peikoff's ideas about induction, or some combination of these, or what...

Noodlefood:

Why did Peikoff morally condemn McCaskey, as opposed to merely thinking him mistaken?

Yaron Brook:

“...the issue for Dr. Peikoff was only whether or not Dr. McCaskey should remain on ARI's Board, not his continued involvement in ARI activities. In other words, contrary to claims that some are now making, no "excommunication" was demanded by Dr. Peikoff...”

BS:

[speicher] says that while she agrees with the facts Tracinski presents, she seriously disagrees with some of the major conclusions he draws from them...Peikoff’s views cannot be ignored or dismissed...(as paraphrased by ‘Starbuckle’)

To coin a phrase: “We are all tolerationists now.”

“Fact and Value”: R.I.P.

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

Well, I sure hope that Travis Norsen didn't take this statement at face value:

http://www.dianahsie...752440018815#18

In any case, I strongly recommend that you bow out of this discussion, since you're already annoyed me more than enough for one day. I might be nicer if I knew who you were, i.e. if I had some context for my judgment of you.

But it looks like he did:

http://www.dianahsie...752440018815#20

One reason I'm posting anonymously is because my identity shouldn't matter one way or the other (though since it seems to matter to you I will email you privately and tell you who I am).

Sigh.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

A certain "Jim" is chiming on the NoodleFood comment thread concerning John McCaskey's resignation.

http://blog.dianahsi...omment-86694093

A moderately long comment ends as follows:

Given the basic Objectivism with which McCaskey seems to disagree -- and his consequent preference for the standard historians -- I am perfectly comfortable with his being bounced from the Board.

Also, calling Peikoff's assertion an "arbitrary" one is really unfair: he need not provide evidence for any assertion to those who read an email that someone else has made public.

Sadly, this issue displays all of the "standard history" of illogical "leaps" which seem to be the conditioned reflex of ARI critics, especially regarding Peikoff's and the ARI Board's state of knowledge.

Oh, well.

Is anyone finding the rhetoric familiar?

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

Sigh.

Robert Campbell

Are we suggesting Comrade Sonia would discredit a rival/competitor for presenter slots at a conference? I’m shocked, shocked! How low can one stoop?

A certain "Jim" is chiming on the NoodleFood comment thread concerning John McCaskey's resignation.

...

Is anyone finding the rhetoric familiar?

Maybe you’re wrong. Could be our Heaps-Nelson, no? Why would he only offer “Jim”, when he could put JAMES VALLIANT, proud author of (have you read it?) PARC?????

Nah, it’s him.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Sigh.

Robert Campbell

Are we suggesting Comrade Sonia would discredit a rival/competitor for presenter slots at a conference? I’m shocked, shocked! How low can one stoop?

A certain "Jim" is chiming on the NoodleFood comment thread concerning John McCaskey's resignation.

...

Is anyone finding the rhetoric familiar?

Maybe you’re wrong. Could be our Heaps-Nelson, no? Why would he only offer “Jim”, when he could put JAMES VALLIANT, proud author of (have you read it?) PARC?????

Nah, it’s him.

Hahaha! I got a good belly laugh out of that one. No, I don't post anonymously or with a handle. I don't see the point. One of the things that really tires me about the Objectivist movement is the incessant damage control and intrigue. It's never about anything very important either. My hope with the McCaskey situation is that the movement will cough up this hairball once and for all.

The sad thing about this is that a majority of Objectivists are very good people. The dumbest thing I've heard is to criticize freedom-loving people because they haven't figured everything out or to worry about whether they should have figured everything out or some of it out and if they haven't they must be intellectually dishonest. The albatross around Objectivism's neck is the courtroom like atmosphere it brings to normal, everyday life. Normal people shouldn't live like that and especially not people who advocate a philosophy of reason.

Jim

[Peter]

James Heaps-Nelson wrote:

The albatross around Objectivism's neck is the courtroom like atmosphere it brings to normal, everyday life. Normal people shouldn't live like that and especially not people who advocate a philosophy of reason.

end quote

I like that comparison to a “courtroom like atmosphere,” James.

“The Objectivist Movement” occasionally reminds me of a Star Trek The Next Generation episode where an investigator comes on board the U.S.S. Enterprise looking for high crimes and misdemeanors. Before long the entire crew is swept up in intrigue with absolutely no factual reason to be suspicious.

In the case of “The Movement” it is Ayn Rand herself or an ARI investigator speculating what is going on in someone else’s head! A lack of personal loyalty even if a person disagrees, and with good factual reasons too, is decreed to be treason – beginning with The Brandens, then David Kelly, and on to lesser miscreants, throughout history.

Let us hope that one day we do not see the following news story:

Reuters) - A photograph of a slim, poker-faced young man lacking any sign of guilt, seated near ARI’s ailing ruler confirmed the rise of Leonard Peikoff’s youngest son as the leader-in-waiting of the secretive state.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor, Independent Objectivist

[Dennis Hardin]

Hahaha! I got a good belly laugh out of that one. No, I don't post anonymously or with a handle. I don't see the point. One of the things that really tires me about the Objectivist movement is the incessant damage control and intrigue. It's never about anything very important either. My hope with the McCaskey situation is that the movement will cough up this hairball once and for all.

The sad thing about this is that a majority of Objectivists are very good people. The dumbest thing I've heard is to criticize freedom-loving people because they haven't figured everything out or to worry about whether they should have figured everything out or some of it out and if they haven't they must be intellectually dishonest. The albatross around Objectivism's neck is the courtroom like atmosphere it brings to normal, everyday life. Normal people shouldn't live like that and especially not people who advocate a philosophy of reason.

Jim

Great post, Jim, and a brilliant analogy. The “official” intellectual hierarchy of Objectivism sustains itself by creating a courtroom atmosphere. And a courtroom where the word “objection” is tantamount to contempt of court, where cross examination is prohibited and where common sense is inadmissible.

And it won’t change as long as the sycophantic mock jury lets the kangaroos stay in charge.

[Selene]

Hahaha! I got a good belly laugh out of that one. No, I don't post anonymously or with a handle. I don't see the point. One of the things that really tires me about the Objectivist movement is the incessant damage control and intrigue. It's never about anything very important either. My hope with the McCaskey situation is that the movement will cough up this hairball once and for all.

The sad thing about this is that a majority of Objectivists are very good people. The dumbest thing I've heard is to criticize freedom-loving people because they haven't figured everything out or to worry about whether they should have figured everything out or some of it out and if they haven't they must be intellectually dishonest. The albatross around Objectivism's neck is the courtroom like atmosphere it brings to normal, everyday life. Normal people shouldn't live like that and especially not people who advocate a philosophy of reason.

Jim

Great post, Jim, and a brilliant analogy. The "official" intellectual hierarchy of Objectivism sustains itself by creating a courtroom atmosphere. And a courtroom where the word "objection" is tantamount to contempt of court, where cross examination is prohibited and where common sense is inadmissible.

And it won't change as long as the sycophantic mock jury lets the kangaroos stay in charge.

Ahh, so it is just like the Democratic Congress and Senate then.

[Dennis Hardin]

And it won't change as long as the sycophantic mock jury lets the kangaroos stay in charge.

Ahh, so it is just like the Democratic Congress and Senate then.

This comment is an insult to kangaroos everywhere. After all, like Peikoff, Binswanger and Schwartz, kangaroos have a brain. If our democratic political leaders had a brain, they would play with it.

[kiaer.ts]

The sad thing about this is that a majority of Objectivists are very good people.

That's called projection, James. Believe me, you, being an actual good person, are in the minority among Objectionists.

[9thdoctor]

No, I don't post anonymously or with a handle.

I might have picked on another James, but I couldn’t think of one (on this board).

That's called projection, James. Believe me, you, being an actual good person, are in the minority among Objectionists.

Objectionists meaning people who post on Objectivist internet sites? I’ve found that in person, the ratio of psychos to seemingly decent people improves dramatically. I have met true believers in the flesh though, and it ain’t pretty. I’ve never met anyone like Perigo or his to-remain-unnamed OL analogue in person. Given my sample size, I should have by now, unless they're shut-ins.

[kiaer.ts]

No, I don't post anonymously or with a handle.

I might have picked on another James, but I couldn't think of one (on this board).

That's called projection, James. Believe me, you, being an actual good person, are in the minority among Objectionists.

Objectionists meaning people who post on Objectivist internet sites? I've found that in person, the ratio of psychos to seemingly decent people improves dramatically. I have met true believers in the flesh though, and it ain't pretty. I've never met anyone like Perigo or his to-remain-unnamed OL analogue in person. Given my sample size, I should have by now, unless they're shut-ins.

An Objectionist is someone who isn't aware of the truth of Roger Bissell's quote of me in his signature line.