The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism

[Chris Grieb]

Ellen: Has there been much reading of PARC outside of Objectivist circles? Has it been reviewed anywhere and by anyone outside of the usual suspects. We know that ARI is trying to present a picture of Ayn Rand as one the nicest people who ever walked the earth and one of the obstacles in their path are the Branden's books. Do you believe ARI will succeed?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen: Has there been much reading of PARC outside of Objectivist circles? Has it been reviewed anywhere and by anyone outside of the usual suspects.

Not that I know of. I don't keep current with the publishing world these days, so I don't know if the book's received mention in the major review media, but I would think that if it had been reviewed say by The New York Times, the New York Review of Books, etc., this would have been reported on O'ist sites.

We know that ARI is trying to present a picture of Ayn Rand as one the nicest people who ever walked the earth and one of the obstacles in their path are the Branden's books. Do you believe ARI will succeed?

No, I don't. I think Valliant's book utterly fails at that. We'll see what happens when the official biography which is in the works is published.

Ellen

___

[Chris Grieb]

Ellen: Has there been much reading of PARC outside of Objectivist circles? Has it been reviewed anywhere and by anyone outside of the usual suspects.

Not that I know of. I don't keep current with the publishing world these days, so I don't know if the book's received mention in the major review media, but I would think that if it had been reviewed say by The New York Times, the New York Review of Books, etc., this would have been reported on O'ist sites.

We know that ARI is trying to present a picture of Ayn Rand as one the nicest people who ever walked the earth and one of the obstacles in their path are the Branden's books. Do you believe ARI will succeed?

No, I don't. I think Valliant's book utterly fails at that. We'll see what happens when the official biography which is in the works is published.

Ellen

Ellen; I assume the official biography is Shoshana Milgram's book which in ARI's conference is described as a study of Rand's life. This is only to be up to 1957 the publication of Atlas Shrugged. The use of the word study rather than biography suggests it may not be quite as comprehensive as a biography. I have a feeling that Miss Milgram's effort will not be taken seriously.

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen; I assume the official biography is Shoshana Milgram's book which in ARI's conference is described as a study of Rand's life. This is only to be up to 1957 the publication of Atlas Shrugged. The use of the word study rather than biography suggests it may not be quite as comprehensive as a biography. I have a feeling that Miss Milgram's effort will not be taken seriously.

Shosh's book is what I meant. I didn't know it was only going to cover up to 1957, and that it's being described as a "study" rather than as a biography. I'd thought it was supposed to be a biography. I wonder if she'll leave out any mention of the Brandens. They met Ayn in early 1950 -- and the affair between Ayn and Nathaniel started in 1955. But if Shosh is just "studying" Ayn's life, she might not feel the need to mention any of that. ;-)

Ellen

___

[Chris Grieb]

Ellen; In the Sure's book Facets of Ayn Rand Mary Ann Sures talks about Leonard Peikoff teaching her about Objectivism. I don't NBI is referring to even through Charles Sures was NBI business representative in Washington. As I already been pointed out the equlavent of vanishing commissars in the Soviet Union is the missing Brandens. Maybe we should referring to ARI's as the Ministry of Truth.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen; In the Sure's book Facets of Ayn Rand Mary Ann Sures talks about Leonard Peikoff teaching her about Objectivism.

The story might be truer than it would seem at first blush. I haven't read the Sures's book. However, back in August 1987, in The Ayn Rand Institute "Newsletter," Volume 2, No. 2, there was an interview of Mary Ann conducted by none other than Susan Ludel -- who apparently at least as of that time was still on friendly terms with Leonard. (Susan Ludel was Leonard's first wife; they were married for awhile, I'm not sure for how many years, during the '70s.)

Here's a section from the interview:

Q: How did you discover Ayn Rand's work?

A: In 1952, I came to New York City from my home in Detroit in order to work on my Masters degree in art history at New York University's Institute of Fine Arts. I became friendly with another student, who I later learned already knew Ayn Rand. During one of our conversations, I mentioned that I had often been accused of indulging myself by studying art history when I should have been doing something to help other people. Even though, deep down, I felt that I would be perectly content to spend the rest of my life looking at paintings, at the time, I was troubled about this aspect of altruism. When my friend heard this, she suggested that I read The Fountainhead. This was in 1953. To say that it changed my life is an understatement.

Q: How did you meet Ayn Rand?

A: First, in 1954, I was introduced to Leonard Peikoff. He had recently moved to New York and, like me, wanted to teach. And since he wanted to teach philosophy, the very thing that I very much wanted to understand, we hit it off right away. And we began to visit each other often.

There were two particular attitudes of Leonard's that I admired very much. He was intensely committed to understanding ideas and philosophy. This was a life or death issue to him. So was being a moral person. And he's still the same. Even though we were young adults when we met, I always think of Leonard as my childhood friend. We spent wonderful years learning and growing up together philosophically.

He was my first real philosophy teacher--which is what led to my meeting Ayn Rand. In 1954, as part of his own training, Leonard gave three or four lectures on her philosophy to a few people, me included. It was actually his first course on Objectivism, although it wasn't yet called that, not until after the publication of Atlas Shrugged. The "final" of the course was an oral examination to be held at Ayn's apartment. It was to be informal, with Leonard asking questions that we would volunteer to answer. I was the only one who had not yet met Ayn Rand.

I think the friend who "already knew Ayn Rand" -- and who probably is the one who later introduced Mary Ann to Leonard -- was Joan Blumenthal.

Ellen

___

[Chris Grieb]

Ellen; I think my point the Ministry of Truth is confirmed. Wasn't Mary Ann Sures Joan's roommate? Barbara Branden told me she introduced Mary Ann to Charles.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Wasn't Mary Ann Sures Joan's roommate?

I don't know, Chris. And I know little in general about Mary Ann. Basically just that she became close friends with Leonard Peikoff, that she was a member of "the Collective", that she taught an NBI-sponsored art course, that she married Charles Sures and moved to the Washington, D.C., area, and that apparently to this day she thinks of AR as having been a spectacularly wonderful person. I never met Mary Ann, and only even saw her once -- at Allan's recital in early '70.

Ellen

___

[Neil Parille]

In the preface to (I think) Rand's letters, there is a statement that an authorized biography of Rand will be forthcoming. I seem to recall Milgram's book being referred to as a biography of Rand until recently. Now it is a study of Rand's life up to 1957.

Anne Heller, an editor for a big publishing company, is apparenly working on a book called "Ayn Rand: An American Life" but I can't find anything recent about it on the web. I gather she hasn't been given access to Rand's archives.

In Gotthelf's book he mentions the Brandens. but downpplays their role in Objectivism ("a long period of study and friendship with her"), so I'm curious how Milgram will deal with the Brandens.

[Chris Grieb]

Ellen; I know about a Blumenthal recital in the late 60ths because a recording was released by NBI. I guess there was a second recital. What became of George Broderick? I was at an NBI social were he and Dr. Blumenthal performed. There is a picture of George Broderick in the Passion of Ayn Rand.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Chris Grieb]

Neil; We may have a good idea from looking at the documentary Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. For ten years NBI was the primary source for Miss Rand's ideas outside of Rand's own writings yet I don't you know that from that film. I think a look at Jeff Britting's autobiographical sketch may also yield a small clue.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Rich Engle]

The "final" of the course was an oral examination to be held at Ayn's apartment. It was to be informal, with Leonard asking questions that we would volunteer to answer.

That sounds like a party, doesn't it? Talk about ministering truth.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen; I know about a Blumenthal recital in the late 60ths because a recording was released by NBI. I guess there was a second recital. What became of George Broderick? I was at an NBI social were he and Dr. Blumenthal performed. There is a picture of George Broderick in the Passion of Ayn Rand.

Sorry, I don't know what became of George Broderick, Chris. I never met him, and don't know what had become of him even as of the time when I arrived in New York City (September '68).

The Allan Blumenthal recital in early 1970 -- I think it was March; I don't have time to look it up right now -- was a gala event. At the same occasion there was a showing of some of Joan's paintings. "Everyone" was there, including Capuletti and Pilar. The rectial was in the same time period as the showing of Capulettis at the Hammer Gallery in which the Desnudo which Ayn bought was on display. The recital is where I met Allan, with momentous long-term results for my acquaintance with the Objectivist world. It was through taking his psychology courses that I met a number of the "Collective" members and others close to the font. (Leonard Peikoff, George Walsh, and some others I'd already met before then.)

Ellen

___

[Chris Grieb]

Ellen; This was in the period where I was drifting away from Objectivism so I did not hear of the recital.. Sounds very interesting. I have a feeling that George Broderick may have been lost in the Split.

[Neil Parille]

For those who haven't had enough of the PARC wars, I will be starting a new series on my blog tomorrow discussing some of the larger methodological problems of PARC --

http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil has posted his recent PARC comments on SLOP, where Valliant hangs out.

James Valliant on TARC

James Valliant on Nathaniel Branden as Objectivist Heretic

What tickles me is that he is not being refuted at all. Phil Coates has a post mentioning why. The contempt these people hold for their own audience is awe-inspiring. I think it blinds them to the fact that some of their own convinced ones will think:

"What Neil wrote was reasonable. If it was wrong, why is nobody answering it and showing where? Are they hiding something? Did I miss that? ARE THEY HIDING SOMETHING?"

It's only a seed, but I believe strongly in the power of reason and it's effect on independent minds. That seed planted in an honest independent mind that prizes integrity will grow. It can't help but grow. Reason demands it.

Personally I hope all the insults and rhetorical dancing and lack of seriousness from that crowd continues. It makes isolating and identifying the true-believers more easily.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

I had stopped posting on Solo some months ago, but decided to put some of my new posts there. Given that I might turn these posts into a second article, I'm curious what any PARCsters might say. Perhaps someone might find a mistake or two, although that hasn't happened yet. I don't plan on responding, so the PARCsters can take their best shot.

It certainly is incredible that all the issues and events I discuss are used by Valliant to make his "case", yet when I show that he misrepresents and distorts them, he (and his followers) claim I'm ignoring the "point" of his book. Why did he put all the stuff in there then?

Edited March 19, 2007 by Neil Parille

[Ellen Stuttle]

It certainly is incredible that all the issues and events I discuss are used by Valliant to make his "case", yet when I show that he misrepresents and distorts them, he (and his followers) claim I'm ignoring the "point" of his book. Why did he put all the stuff in there then?

Excellent question, and I see that Valliant is using the same response -- although he's gotten much briefer -- which he's been using ever since Chris Sciabarra's review appeared, which is basically: "You've missed the point."

So what IS his "point"? Has he ever said? He starts out his book, in the introductory part, claiming that he's going to show "the Brandens'" (whom he often refers to as if they were one person) books useless as sources, though he then proceeds to depend on exactly those sources at key junctures: for instance, that AR got permission from the respective spouses for the affair (who else now alive except the Brandens was present who could confirm this?), and multiple lesser for instances. So what, exactly, is his point? Near as I can tell -- and I've read the entire book twice, once non-consecutively, starting with AR's entries while ignoring his comments, then reading the rest out of order; the second time consecutively -- his point is "Brandens = BAD; Rand = GOOD," and anyone who says anything negative about Rand can't be trusted (except Leonard Peikoff, who did acknowledge occasions when Rand was over-quick at losing her temper).

Ellen

___

Edited March 19, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It certainly is incredible that all the issues and events I discuss are used by Valliant to make his "case", yet when I show that he misrepresents and distorts them, he (and his followers) claim I'm ignoring the "point" of his book. Why did he put all the stuff in there then?

Neil,

LOLOLOL...

Could it be that Valliant's a liar and those who are convinced don't need to worry anymore about details like facts? (OK, OK, I know you are a gentleman and prefer to let the facts speak for themselves instead of using harsh language. But I'm a little rougher around the edges where PARC is concerned...)

It actually is an issue of mind control. One of the most objective statements about mind control I have ever read came from an ex-Amway member: MIND CONTROL - A SIMPLE MECHANISM. Here is a quote from that article:

The only thing "Black Hats" have to know and DO know implicitly is the simple and subtle truth of mind-control: Mind control is the certain and predictable product of THE FREQUENT REPETITION OF STRATEGIC IDEAS OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME - the same mechanism that results in HABIT, good or bad.

This can be put to use in any kind of psycho-emotional environment. It may be done in the context of suppression, coercion, or force or it can be done in the Amway "system of motivation", e.g. at rallies, in Amvox messages, at strategy meetings, on seminar tapes, in counseling sessions with upline, and in AMO recommended books. It's simply the frequent repetition of the same ideas over an extended period of time.

One only has to repeat an action, or a thought often enough and long enough for it to become a "brain imprint" or a neurological "circuit" or simply: a HABIT...

Now notice that "environment" is a key word there. Valliant & Co. claim that the Brandens have duped mankind through this kind of tactic, however if we look at "environment," we see that the Brandens always did operate on the open market where rebuttal could come from any quarter and compete. The public did not want it, though, and rebuttal stayed confined to pockets of fanatics.

Valliant & Co. are operating within closed groups where there is an "in crowd" and you are either "in" or "out." There are defined power structures and there is strong pressure to convert those who show up. Nothing like this is present in the environment where the Brandens have sold their works and ideas.

Speaking of pressure to convert newcomers and continuing with the Amway stuff, I was impressed when I read the quote below on "The AMO Squeeze." It is so similar to how the anti-Branden campaign works that it is not funny. Notice that the key component in the anti-Branden campaign is the phrase, "restore Rand as a heroine." This phrase is repeated over and over among the faithful as if it were something that needed doing: "restore Rand as a heroine." But if you say this from the other end, it sounds silly. The implication is that the Brandens "removed Rand as a heroine."

Heh.

This word "heroine" doesn't mean someone to look up to, either. Both Brandens look up to Rand and their frequent statements of admiration are proof. Every regular OL member has heroes and heroines to look up to and Rand certainly is there among them. But the word "heroine" in the phrase "restore Rand as a heroine" means "someone to worship." That's the sad truth.

Those convinced by Valliant do not really want to restore Rand, however. They want to restore and validate their own faith. They feel lost without God. I speak metaphorically, but that is the central issue. They feel lost without God and they have scapegoated religion too long to backpedal.

Now read the following and substitute the financial focus for a spiritual focus. Where it says "broke," put in "depressed" or "cynical" or "unhappy" or something like that. And where it says buy the tools, etc. substitute "read PARC" and things like that. And substitute "J.O.B." for "life without a hero" or some Perigo-like slang to sound cool. Then, if you have followed the online debacle of PARC, look at the parallels. They are amazing.

THE AMO "SQUEEZE"

It starts with the lure of the first AMO motivational tape. Typically an emerald or diamond rally tape.

You listen. You relate. You develop an affinity with the speaker because, according to him, he used to be just like you are now: broke, frustrated, stagnant. Essentially a failure. The speaker can, by the end of his spiel, usually get an unsuspecting listener to believe he or she is, to some degree, a failure. This is essential.

You hear what he did to become UNlike you. You hear the story of his success. You begin to feel a rekindled sense of hope and enthusiasm.

You are informed by your sponsor that this tape is part of a fool-proof "system" for the attainment of success. You are advised by your sponsor to do exactly what the leaders in the AMO system tell you to do. Just DO it, they say. Just buy the tools and attend all functions. Never mind the cost. It's not that much, anyway. Keep DOING it. No matter WHAT. Sooner or later, you'll make it. Do it long enough and you will be set free from your current state of misery and stagnation and the "prison" you call a J.O.B.

These directives are repeated constantly and this repetition creates "circuits" in your mind that become so soldered in that you get disturbed at the idea of NOT doing what your upline idols and "The System" demands. You're not aware of it but your critical intelligence has been slowly and methodically embezzled.

I could go on about this all day.

But basically, the people who have addressed you so far on SLOP are far beyond the need for facts. The anti-Branden ideas have become habit, i.e., "brain imprints" or "neurological "circuits," and their "critical intelligence has been slowly and methodically embezzled." They no longer need to think independently or examine what they do think. They believe. Frankly, your call to look at the facts is irritating to them. They have been saved.

This is faith Objectivist-style.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

I think that sometimes you do get carried away. Do you believe that there is no one who read Valliant's book and believed he'd "vindicated" Rand who isn't a mental robot? (For instance, what of someone like Jeff Perren (sp?), who's a really smart guy, and Bill Perry, likewise, and some persons whom I won't name whom I consider quite honorable and also capable of thinking for themselves but less possessed of intellect than the aforenamed?) How do you help in trying to encourage those who were convinced, on however careless a reading, or from whatever desires to believe that AR was Ms. Incredible, to re-examine if you accuse them en masse, as if they're all the same, of having had their critical abilites wiped out?

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How do you help in trying to encourage those who were convinced, on however careless a reading, or from whatever desires to believe that AR was Ms. Incredible, to re-examine if you accuse them en masse, as if they're all the same, of having had their critical abilites wiped out?

Ellen,

The same goes for any intelligent Christian or Muslim (or other religious order). Except these religions do not advocate the supremacy of reason. Objectivism does. That's what gets me angry.

Knowledgeable Objectivists have no excuse to cultivate the need for faith (the type that cancels rational thought) in their souls.

Notice that, in general, those loudest in praise of PARC are also loudest in demanding the use of nuclear weapons against Islam as a whole. I see an ugly connection in manner of thinking.

They are the ones who say one should not withhold moral judgment. OK. I don't. Starting with them.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

They are the ones who say one should not withhold moral judgment. OK. I don't. Starting with them.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't see the necessity. I do see the hypocrisy that Michael points out. "One should not withold moral judgment,"...Ptui! The only place I see that working in matters like this, it's on yourself, not others--too easy to mix in your own desires, your own ego, your own wish to be judge and jury in areas not fully grasped.

Least of all this old corpse.

That's where it always starts-- ignore the Golden Rule, and, to mix, start throwing stones from within your glass house. You don't have to be spiritual to understand the sheer operancy of those two principles.

Worked for The Inquisition. It works for anyone who tries it, at least for a time (hey, it's been run out for 800 years or so, on a good tear). Effectiveness aside (and oh yes, it is effective), the real thing is to dig under the dirt and figure out what the motivating factor is. The "what's in it for me" factor.

Valliant appointed himself to right some grievous, long dead "wrong." This is all he has to think about in life? I don't think so. I think it was an easy vehicle for him to jump on and propel himself.

What's in it for Valliant? Restoring Rand's good name? I find that ever-so-thin. Self-appointing himself to do that for another (even Rand) sounds a little outside of the classic Objectivism from where he seems to operate. It's flimsy, it's always been flimsy. James Valliant is hungry for recognition, and for that alone I cannot fault him-- it's what he wants for whatever reason. If he wants the guru/intellectual bon vivant masque, well, fine, and he will attract the like-minded.

Others, though (and if he's smart he counts on this) will allow him to make for them what might have been a difficult "decision" in this "case."

But it's not a "case." It's a very sad interpersonal blow up that happened a long time ago. Everybody was at fault, everybody made errors. That he wants to dig it up and re-serve it to achieve his own ends (the guy who "vindicated" what never needed vindication) is his deal, it's his circus act, and he can go have it. I find it difficult to imagine him writing anything of substance were it not involving muckracking, were it not involving writing books that unshroud the lies, the deceipt, the wrongdoing...all identified by him, and delivered to us pro bono but for the price of a book. Or worse, having to listen to him hold forth. I usually find free lunches to be substandard. I get suspicious anytime someone decloaks and decides it's time to do me a "favor" by opening my eyes for me. Uh huh.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Rich Engle]

I guess I'm not done even though Phil did a relentless job over there at Happy Acres...

The Valliant reply, in form as usual:

Unable to address any of the substance of PARC, Neil focuses his relentless obsession on grossly mischaracterizing a few of its details out of all context. Having intentionally blinded himself to most of the evidence and argument in the book, he misses big pieces of very subjects he actually tries to take on.

You really have to read the whole book, Neil, to understand these out-of-context fragments of it.

And, in any event, your take does not inspire much confidence in your understanding of Objectivism in the first place.

Since you simply ignore refutations of your endless nonsense, what sense does attempting any further response to you make?

Heavens to Betsy! A "few details" Neil took out of all context? Whah? He took a botaload of specific citings, researched them down, and for the most part showed what was said, and what Valliant ~said~ they said. Bingo! Yikes! "Unable to address any of the substance of PARC." So, was ist das mysterioso "zoobstanze?" Apparently not actual standalone statements in the book. Neil has, by going to the grain, "intentionally blinded himself." Neil, I hope that didn't hurt too much, eye-gouging is unpleasant business. How do you take a standalone comment "out of context?" These are direct references to people and events! Everything's a moving target with this guy...total Rube Goldberg. "You can't look at this little thing because you don't get the Big Picture<tm>." And then if you go after the Big Picture<tm> he tries to spank you for not reading carefully enough. What the fuck?

And after all this gobbledy-gook, he goes for the gaff: Neil is not inspiring him to believe he understands Objectivism; not like James does! Followed by taking the researched, point-by-point work, proclaiming it "endless nonsense" (translation: this is starting to irritate me), and asking why he should respond further?

Well, he never has responded with any kind of, er, "substantive" refuatations, and frankly, I gotta go with him on that call-- might be better to just curl up in a ball and take the beating, one which he surely had coming.

The best (pretty much the only) thing he comes up with is "you don't get it," "out-of-context," "read more carefully" hocum. If we just GOT it the way he wants us to; if we could only aspire to the deep understanding and scary academic prowess that is James. Rightio.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

I see that you replied to my post #145, but I don't see that you actually addressed any of the three related questions I posed. An addendum about Jeff Perren. I'm not sure if he ever got around to reading PARC direct. If I recall correctly (I hope I'm not mixing him up with someone else) his approach was one of wondering why PARC was even needed, since he was of the prior opinion that the Brandens' respective books were unreliable.

I'm aware that you might have meant your comments as applying only to those who have responded in favor of PARC on Neil's current threads on SOLO. However, you didn't limit your remarks to those people, but instead referred generally to the psychology of "those who are convinced.":

Could it be that Valliant's a liar and those who are convinced don't need to worry anymore about details like facts?

[....]

Those convinced by Valliant do not really want to restore Rand, however. They want to restore and validate their own faith. They feel lost without God. I speak metaphorically, but that is the central issue. They feel lost without God and they have scapegoated religion too long to backpedal.

These are highly insulting descriptions of those -- and there are some -- who are not persons motivated in the way you describe but who nevertheless believe that PARC did a service in "setting the record straight," in "letting Ayn Rand's side of the story be heard." As you're aware, I'm concerned to try to reach exactly those people and encourage them to think it through again. I don't feel that you help when you tar with the same black brush everyone who, from whatever causes -- in some cases I think it was mostly hasty reading, believes that Valliant did present a meritorious case.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Phil posted a comparison on this thread ("James Valliant on Nathaniel Branden as Objectivist Heretic") which particularly entertains me, since I'm involved in debates on both issues -- indirectly with the second issue, that of global warming, but "intensively" nonetheless, since it's a chronic topic around here. I've been noticing for months, and on occasion commenting to Larry about, the similarities in dynamics on the two issues.

Details matter.

I have to say that, while I don't have an overall position on PARC vs. PAR not having read them, whenever I see simple criticisms not being refuted even though it should be quite possible to counter them, it makes me wonder if the reason is because one *cannot answer* them. And if they are valid?

An example of this is global warming:

Climate is complex scientifically, being affected by many causes. I don't fully know if it's man-made or dangerous or simply an area where we don't yet understand the science of climate. But when I hear the arguments of the global warming critics (i) ignored or (ii) claims that this has all been resolved and the debate is over or (iii) the critics subjected to personal attack and questioning of character as being "in the pocket" of the Brandens (oops, I meant "corporate interests") in lieu of point-by-point response to the science...

It sets off all kinds of alarm bells.

Ellen

___