Harriman/ARI and/or Peikoff rift?

[SoAMadDeathWish]

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

This is unadulterated tribalism in its raw magnificence.

Michael

It gets even better, when you consider that Peikoff is basically an evangelical preacher. Like any religionist, the product he sells is existential certainty, and so the crazier and more extreme his behavior and beliefs are, and the more confidence he has in expressing them, the more his fanatical followers are drawn to him. This translates into more money for the ARI and Piekoff and then even more extreme behavior, etc. Seems to explain a lot.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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.

I forgot to mention what they did to Richard Gleaves, too.

They eat their own at times.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This translates into more money for the ARI and Piekoff and then even more extreme behavior, etc. Seems to explain a lot.

Naomi,

I wish it were just money. But the roots of that mentality run far deeper.

Try to imagine buying off some of those people.

It wouldn't work.

There was a lady who followed Jim Jones who drank the first cyanide-laced Kool-Aid during the mass suicide. No hesitation. No question. No nothing. He said do it and she popped up immediately.

That's the kind of person who scares the holy bejeezus out of me. And that's what I see in these people (to a lesser degree, maybe, but still the same intellectual and emotional root).

From their actions, I just don't see money as a prime mover with them.

btw - A gentle correction. It is spelled Peikoff, not Piekoff. E before I.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

I wish it were just money. But the roots of that mentality run far deeper.

Try to imagine buying off some of those people.

It wouldn't work.

There was a lady who followed Jim Jones who drank the first cyanide-laced Kool-Aid during the mass suicide. No hesitation. No question. No nothing. He said do it and she popped up immediately.

That's the kind of person who scares the holy bejeezus out of me. And that's what I see in these people (to a lesser degree, maybe, but still the same intellectual and emotional root).

From their actions, I just don't see money as a prime mover with them.

btw - A gentle correction. It is spelled Peikoff, not Piekoff. E before I.

Michael

Oh I agree. The money is a necessary factor but not the main one.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

The 1980s Called, and They Want Their Objectivism Back

It's an all right essay. It deals more with criticizing the orthodoxy than the Harriman thing, but he has are some interesting takes.

And speaking of takes, I take strong issue with his view of Barbara (and Nathaniel, for that matter). He gives the typical canned orthodoxy view of how Barbara damaged Rand, wrote her bio of Rand as "scurrilous attack on Objectivism," yada yada yada, but he doesn't really know all that much about it since he was never concerned with Rand's personal life, only her ideas. You can almost see the nose raise when people from (or rooted in) the ortho camp say this crap.

I seriously doubt he read Barbara's book and his writing sounds like he got most of his information about both Brandens second hand or, as he would say, at two degrees or more of separation. But that doesn't stop him for stating--as fact--that they "copped" to "to many (but not all) of the dishonest, scheming, and manipulative things they did when they were running the organized movement that surrounded Ayn Rand in the 1960s."

This is in clear contrast to Barbara's promotion of him and his magazine over years. Whenever his name came up, she never failed to recommend to people to read Tracinski's work. And she was extremely gracious about it. No reservations at all. I know this because I heard it from her lips and I am sure it is written here on OL in several places under her own account.

So I'll let readers come to their own conclusions about who the bigger person is.

Tracinski wants to be above schism stuff, but insists on perpetuating some of it. The phrase, "physician, heal thyself," comes to mind.

However, the rest of the essay is a fairly decent read. I especially liked his comments about how Facebook killed Schwartz's don't sanction the sanctioners thing by recording for public view how absurd this plays out.

I recommend it, and I do, but with reservation.

I'm not as elegant as Barbara.

Michael

Somebody else objected to Tracinski's comments about Barbara, Robert Bidinotto, and Tracinski appeared on his Facebook thread to comment. So to be fair, here is what he said:

Bob, when I said "from what I read" I meant from what I read in Barbara Branden's book. You know I'm not the sort to take somebody else's opinion without observing things for myself. I didn't read all of the book, hence the disclaimer, but enough to get a sense of its approach. What I definitely know is that this is how the book was used by others: as evidence that Ayn Rand's philosophy sounds good in theory but fails in practice.

I guess what we think about Barbara Branden is somewhat moot now, so all that matters is what I think of Robert Bidinotto.

I want to repeat once again that the argument that Rand was unable to practice her own philosophy has not stopped the spread of her ideas one iota.

The only people who have been concerned with this argument are those who want to "defend Rand's honor" and those who would never accept her ideas to begin with.

Those who "defend her honor" pretend from their Never-Never-Land that if it were not for this argument, Rand's ideas would have spread far and wide--much more so than they have. This is utter bullshit as proven by her yearly book sales.

Those who attack her pretend from their own version of Never-Never-Land that they are arresting the spread of her ideas with the argument. And this is utter bullshit, too, for the same reason.

There's other evidence, but if these folks refuse to look at this one fact and put two and two together to come out four, why would anything else convince them?

Furthermore, Barbara's book has help spread Rand's ideas. Even that awkward movie based on it. That is if fan mail would ever be considered as evidence to these committed souls.

Reality check doesn't seem to be a strong point with these folks on this issue.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

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.

I wasn't suggesting that she stopped talking about them, just reporting that as far as I can tell, she hasn't said anything publicly.

As far as I can tell isn't far, since I'm not on Facebook. I'm hoping I'm not going to break down and join because of this Harriman business, but maybe I might.

Meanwhile, I can't access the posts you linked.

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.

Ah, Andrei Hent. Valliant mentioned that Harriman responded to someone named Hent.

I'll read the thread. Thanks for the link.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Starting that thread of Amy's, pausing to mention a minor point of amusement which I've noticed before from PARC's Amazon page being linked several times on the Epstein thread. Here's the brief blurb:

Book Description

Release date: May 1, 2005

Read Rand's own never-before-scene journal entries about the Brandons. Author Valliant shines light on the truth hidden by the Brandens' biographies and sets the record straight.

Is there a proof-reader aboard? "never-before-scene...Brandons."

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

Heh.

The Never Before Scene takes place in Never Never Land.

Ah... if only this were a musical...

(I couldn't think of a quick quip for Brandon/Branden. )

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Diana's Web site was somewhat interesting and you could speed-read it, but when she went into podcasts and her site became mostly look-at-my-podcast, I lost all interest. I have hardly ever listened to Peikoff either. Getting to the higher quality stuff--from Ayn Rand--the standard scuttlebut has always been how scintillating her Saturday night give and take conversations were with "The Collective." I suspect her best stuff was published leaving few hiden gems lost to history. I'd like to hear the conversations she had with John Hospers, however, or with any true expert on the area of that expert's expertise. I only know of Hospers and that classical music guy-composer (and conductor?) who was the father of someone fairly close to Rand in the 1960s.

--Brant

why Leonard Peikoff isn't an expert on Objectivism: he's stuck inside the damn thing and hardly knows it

why Ayn Rand wasn't an expert on Objectivism: same reason except even worse

why I'm not an expert on Objectivism: I stopped studying the inside of it, I'm not a philosopher and have no academic interest and the philosophy of Ayn Rand is like lifting several hundred pounds when you only need ten--the rest is take it or leave it since it's not really philosophy but cultural baggage dressed out as opinions, tastes and make the world into what I want it to be--nothing necessarily wrong with any of those except they aren't philosophy and should be carefully considered x-philosophy or as philosophy applied

[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"?

I read both the Amy Peikoff Facebook thread and the Robert Bidinotto Facebook thread Michael provided links to.

Nothing on either thread provides either confirmation or disconfirmation for Trasinski's description of Harriman as defecting "from the Leonard Peikoff wing of the movement to the David Kelley wing."

Jerry Biggers inquired on the Bidinotto thread

link

[March 29 at 6:13 pm, about the 58th post]

By the way, despite all the furor over this story, HAS ANYONE RECEIVED ANY CONFIRMATION FROM HARRIMAN, PEIKOFF, ARI, TAS THAT THIS ALLEGED "SWITCHING" FROM ARI TO TAS, IS TRUE?, None of these, as of yesterday, have confirmed any such "jumping ship" by Dr. Harriman!

Bidinotto corrected a misstatement Biggers then made, but neither he nor anyone else said anything in answer to the question.

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

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)

I want the real thing too. But I'm not meanwhile going to deprive myself of what we have. The Journals as published contain valuable material on Rand's intellectual development. That one needs to use cautiously doesn't mean that one can't use judiciously.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Speaking of Harriman's editing of the Journals, however, what he did there and what he did with the history of science in The Logical Leap are both examples of his willingness to spin doctor in order to produce an image Peikoff wanted.

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.

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)

I want the real thing too. But I'm not meanwhile going to deprive myself of what we have. The Journals as published contain valuable material on Rand's intellectual development. That one needs to use cautiously doesn't mean that one can't use judiciously.

So much depends on subtle nuances changing over time that Rand updated almost as if she wrote her journals back then with her present-day, contemporary, mature knowledge as interpreted by someone else pretty much makes them worthless or worse than worthless to me. I'll only open that book infrequently and only read a little from time to time now. If you have five rotting fish in a larger pile of fish do you want fish for dinner if you can't tell them apart?

I neither hate nor despise Leonard Peikoff except for what he has allowed happen to her papers published for public consumption. All the rest is only Ayn Rand logically continued with a smaller mind. This has helped people figure out what is wrong with her and her philosophy and how it has been taught. All else is quite trrivial except for ignorant and confused and mis-led young people who don't know they shouldn't read Atlas Shrugged until they are 32 female and 35 male. (Same thing for marriage: gals should wait until at least 25 and guys 27 [Nathaniel Branden].)

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A random thought floated through my mind as I was mulling over all this schism stuff.

I came to Objectivism because, when I was younger, it offered a way out of my suffering. I had no idea why people were so screwed up and why they took pleasure in blocking me or causing me distress. Why they were so mean to me. Especially when I did good things.

The answer I got from my first impressions of Rand's work was that they were envious and felt guilty because they betrayed their own integrity, so they felt compelled to bring down--down to their level or even lower--people who reminded them of who they could and should have been. Taking me down was a way for them to avoid looking at who they truly were, thus they would not have to feel shame.

OK. That made sense back then. It was awful, but it made sense. It still does, albeit in a more limited way. I say this after a lot of living off the beaten path.

But one thing kept coming back to haunt me over and over. What kind of man did I want to be? Answer: I wanted to be like the good guys in Rand's books and I did not want to be like the people who had caused me so much pain.

In other words, there was a world out there, one built by Rand and her followers, one greater than me that was offering templates I could try on, to use an odd metaphor. I really liked the Randian good guy template. I did not know much, but I did know I did not want to be like the people of my past. I did not want to be an enforcer of conformity to their groups.

Over time, the good guys in Rand's books become less complete in my mind. I wanted more. For example, I also liked the typical American good guy template of helping old ladies cross the street, but kicking the ass of bad guys. Rough around the edges and dangerous when crossed, but clumsy at expressing love. Let's say I melded these (and a few other characteristics). But the Randian take on self-responsibility, integrity, productivity, looking at the world first-hand, things like that were still strong in my answer. The core.

Oh... I went through my revenge stage where I got back at some of my former nemeses. I went through my meltdowns and addictions. I've done a lot I am not proud of (and a lot I am). Yet this question and answer kept coming back at various times.

What do I want to be? Answer: I want to be good. I don't want to be bad like those people in my past.

I believe I am not alone in this. From the way folks in our subcommunity write on forums and social media, I see this subtext over and over.

So back to schisms. One of the biggest covert messages a schism conveys is group identity. Which group do you belong to? And that means what kind of good guy template do you want to use for your own life?

Well, belonging to a group is no sin. We all belong to many. The rub is what kind of man or woman within that group do you want to be?

Is a good guy in your group someone who dishes out pain in the name of the values professed by that group?

That's what is offered in a schism. At least the way schism is done in our subcommunity.

You can't help but stop and wonder: where have I seen that before?

Oh yeah. I've seen that kind of person. That is precisely the kind who hurt me.

Oh no. Am I turning into the very thing I rejected? The group changed, of course. Now I'm in a good guy group. But what about this nasty behavior?

Do I really want to become that?

Just look at the schism discussions and you will see this kind of questioning in between the lines of so many people, it's poignant. Often their pain and doubts are right there on the surface. It makes you want to reach out to these people and say it's going to be all right and they were not mistaken.

But it's never going to be all right...

Not around spiteful people.

And they were mistaken...

Like I have been...

Ah, shit...

There's so much to say...

It's frustrating...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

That was tough, Michael.

--Brant

trying to mix up the Boy Scouts with Objectivism

[Jonathan]

I am an AGWer, I suppose. To list out results which would disprove 'their theories' it's necessary to examine the building blocks of what we might call CO2-warming theory. From my reading over the years and especially reading of The Discovery of Global Warming by Weart, there have been many steps and lines of inquiry converging on the modern consensus.

What do you mean by "the modern consensus"? Do you mean that a consensus of all scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by man's activities, or do you mean that a consensus of a relatively small group of scientists who were selected to attend certain conferences agree that it is likely that man's activities have contributed to one degree or another to global warming? Or do you mean something else?

Individual achievements are many but seldom noted: here's a timeline from Weart's online version of the book. I recommend the book highly. Results or findings contrary to a modern AGW theory would then be expected at any stage along the timeline, from Tyndal to Arrhenius to Revelle to Keeling and to more recent panoptic science.

I just quickly reviewed the timeline, and I see that it notes findings during certain years that have been contrary to AGW theories, but it dismisses them as anomalies or enigmas rather than as disproof of the theories. It seems that when confronted with findings which don't support AGW theories' predictions, the idea is to not abandon the theory, but to move the goal posts and concoct an explanation for the "anomaly" that is more conjecture than science.

Also, I'll have to dig a little deeper before saying for certain, but the timeline appears that it might be selective in what it contains and what it leaves out, and it appears to possibly contain some anachronistic airbrushing of errors and terms used at different times.

For example, several lines of evidence converge to separately support that atmospheric CO2 is vital to Earth's relative warmth, and those lines were supported by more fundamental findings on exact mechanisms. Each component that has withstood falsification contributed to the understanding of long-term climate characteristics and changes. For this AGWer, a demonstration that CO2 does not act as advertised in the consensus, does not contribute to a 'greenhouse' effect, does not have a relationship with Earth's long-term temperature swings, that would tend to make me question the fundamentals.

Specifically which "consensus" are you referring to?

J

[Brant Gaede]

I like the 19th C. consensus that the atom would never-could never be split.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

I like the 19th C. consensus that the atom would never-could never be split.

--Brant

There wasn't a 19th-century consensus that there are atoms.

Ellen

(edited to correct a typo not noticed till after Brant's post next below)

[Brant Gaede]

I like the 19th C. consensus that the atom would never-could never be split.

--Brant

The wasn't a 19th-century consensus that there are atoms.

Ellen

A consensus amongst the consentors?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I read both the Amy Peikoff Facebook thread and the Robert Bidinotto Facebook thread Michael provided links to.

Ellen,

If you want some more from Biddy Bob (Kat's affectionate name for Robert), he did a second installment.

I posted on that thread, but I stayed away from the issue. Not because I don't like gossip, God forbid!

I just don't have time enough as it is. And I know me. I would probably get entangled in a mess over there.

So I just let Robert know we're still here and wish him all success in his new fiction-writing career. He does it well and I believe he is going to become a name for real in the vigilante genre. (Or as Ayn Rand said about Mickey Spillane, "avenging angel.")

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

If you want some more from Biddy Bob (Kat's affectionate name for Robert), he did a second installment.

I posted on that thread [...].

link

Michael Stuart Kelly "By a forum, I mean a publication or other public platform in which each individual speaks strictly for himself -- not for the rest of the group. A forum is a means by which ideas can be honed, clarified, expanded, and tested. All participants benefit from the education they get in a forum, but each maintains his own independence, reputation, and integrity."

Robert -- I can relate...

btw - I love your success. Keep rocking...

I thought of OL when I read Robert's description of a "forum" on the original thread from which he picked up his opening post.

I was surprised to see Darlene Bridge, now Darlene Bridge Lofgren, making an appearance. I haven't heard of her in years, though I suppose she's been around. She wrote a book of poetry which was popular with a number of the Objectivists I knew.

Interesting though I find the analysis of schism dynamics, what I'd still like to know, in particular, and still find no actual information about, is what happened between Harriman and Peikoff and what, if anything, is happening between Harriman and Kelley.

Harriman is one whom I'd dearly like to see vanish from the O'ist scene, since unfortunately there are a sizable number of Objectivists who take him seriously as a science guru.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

The way to make ________ "vanish" from the Objectivist "scene" is to stop talking and writing about him. The only Objectivist commonality with science is, passively, the basic axiomatic positions. If any--even Objectivists--try to add to that it's neither science nor Objectivism, which is already pretty much ruined for public consumption and become properly only a private matter.

--Brant

[PDS]

I read both the Amy Peikoff Facebook thread and the Robert Bidinotto Facebook thread Michael provided links to.

Ellen,

If you want some more from Biddy Bob (Kat's affectionate name for Robert), he did a second installment.

I posted on that thread, but I stayed away from the issue. Not because I don't like gossip, God forbid!

I just don't have time enough as it is. And I know me. I would probably get entangled in a mess over there.

So I just let Robert know we're still here and wish him all success in his new fiction-writing career. He does it well and I believe he is going to become a name for real in the vigilante genre. (Or as Ayn Rand said about Mickey Spillane, "avenging angel.")

Michael

Interesting stuff in Biddy Bob's references to what Ayn Rand herself said about an organized movement, and the way Leonard weaseled in on that particular issue.

[dsaum]

The way to make ________ "vanish" from the Objectivist "scene" is to stop talking and writing about him. The only Objectivist commonality with science is, passively, the basic axiomatic positions. If any--even Objectivists--try to add to that it's neither science nor Objectivism, which is already pretty much ruined for public consumption and become properly only a private matter.

--Brant

Harriman's starting point is that philosophy is prior to physics and so physics depends on it. Physicist who think they are rejecting philosophy as worthless are setting themselves up for accepting some unexamined philosophy. Harriman says that if you read the history of physics, you can generally see exactly why philosophy they assume, and that has a big impact on how they interpret or develop their theories. His lectures spend a lot of time with "horror file" quotes from various physicists.

I think Harriman has a point, but he does not seem to have studied Bacon, the first philosopher of science who established the baseline philosophy for science. That baseline allowed scientists to ignore a lot of bad philosophy, so they are not as helpless as Harriman seems to believe.

In general I give Harriman an A for asking some interesting questions, and an F for his polemical answers.

[PDS]

The way to make ________ "vanish" from the Objectivist "scene" is to stop talking and writing about him. The only Objectivist commonality with science is, passively, the basic axiomatic positions. If any--even Objectivists--try to add to that it's neither science nor Objectivism, which is already pretty much ruined for public consumption and become properly only a private matter.

--Brant

Harriman's starting point is that philosophy is prior to physics and so physics depends on it. Physicist who think they are rejecting philosophy as worthless are setting themselves up for accepting some unexamined philosophy. Harriman says that if you read the history of physics, you can generally see exactly why philosophy they assume, and that has a big impact on how they interpret or develop their theories. His lectures spend a lot of time with "horror file" quotes from various physicists.

I think Harriman has a point, but he does not seem to have studied Bacon, the first philosopher of science who established the baseline philosophy for science. That baseline allowed scientists to ignore a lot of bad philosophy, so they are not as helpless as Harriman seems to believe.

In general I give Harriman an A for asking some interesting questions, and an F for his polemical answers.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?