The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar

[Judith]

If there is a market for civility, it is not easy to find on many online Objectivist discussion groups.

. . .

So please stop rationalizing the all personal insults, the obscene language, the gratuitous psychologizing, the He-threw-the-first-punch finger-pointing. This behavior is undignified and unseemly, and nobody involved seems to realize that it is only providing Objectivism's real enemies with an abundance of footnotes.

Robert makes an excellent point. Is there nowhere left to go to discuss Objectivism where one isn't constantly exposed to prepubescent name-calling and sneering?

I don't know much about Lindsay Perigo. I frankly couldn't care less. I checked out the SOLOP site a few times, didn't feel at home there, and haven't been back.

If I don't like someone's stuff, you know what I do? I DON'T READ HIS FREAKIN' STUFF!!!!

I've found it embarrassing to find things like "Pigero" and "SLOP" repeatedly on this site, as if they were funny, or profound, or making some coherent point. Don't tell me, "You don't know him," or "He deserves it." It doesn't matter if he does or if he does not; things like that demean the speaker. Back in seventh grade I expected such things of my peers. Not now. If you don't like his stuff, why do you folks keep reading it and coming back here and telling everyone else about it? And if you DO have to read it and complain about it, can you at least keep the discussion at an adult level? I can avoid some of it by avoiding certain threads, like PARC, but other bits of it pervade the entire discussion list. And OL appears to be the best there is, so if not here, where is there left to go?

Judith

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

Will Thomas's explanation (pretty consistently expressed in two different emails) is that

(1) Uniting the Objectivist movement is important;

(2) Uniting the Objectivist movement means being inclusive of all significant players therein;

(3) Lindsay Perigo, as editor of the Free Radical and principal at SOLOPassion, is a significant player;

(4) Lindsay Perigo got high marks from the audience for his 2004 Summer Seminar talk ("The Elixir of Youth");

Therefore, Mr. Perigo should be invited to speak at the Summer Seminar.

I've asked Will whether criteria like (1) - (3) wouldn't militate for the inclusion of Jim Valliant, Regi Firehammer, or Peter Schwartz (assuming permission from higher authorities, in Schwartz's case) as Summer Seminar speakers. I never got an answer.

I've asked whether Mr. Perigo's conduct post-2004, particularly his decision to renege on a Summer Seminar invitation in 2006 and stage a counter-speech at a Borders bookstore, might detract from point (4), but Will continues to insist on Mr. Perigo's sterling qualities as a speaker.

I don't know whether Will has listened to the audio of the Borders bookstore oration. I've asked him about it twice now and not gotten an answer. But Will has consistently maintained that Mr. Perigo's positive qualities, as an Objectivist motivational speaker, outweigh his rudeness or his proneness to vendettas or even his slams at TAS and its principals.

Meanwhile, it's 2008 and I'm having trouble finding any of these purported positive qualities...

Clearly, Will's intention is to keep Lindsay Perigo on the Summer Seminar program.

Judging from Robert Bidinotto's recent chiding posts here on OL, I've come around to the view that the TAS leadership is about to reaffirm the invitation.

Either Mr. Perigo's open defiance of Ed Hudgins' request for civility will be ignored--or it will be excused because it was all provoked by some of us at Objectivist Living.

Robert Campbell

If that is what Wil is saying, it is extremely disappointing, to say the least.

Apparently, he has chosen to completely ignore the defamatory comments that Perigo has made about the TAS leadership over the past several years. Or he has not read them. You mean, any misconduct by Perigo is acceptable? Because he is a "motivational speaker"?!?? I did not see anything motivational on his SOLOP site.

If that is truly the TAS position, then they might as well invite Peter Schwartz and the other ARIans. Of course, that action will destroy the credibility of TAS. And most likely cause a reduction of support of TAS by its membership. It will certainly cause a drop in TAS Summer Institute attendance.

Most Objectivists joined TAS based on its principled stand. The positions that David Kelley stated in his The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand" are precisely what Perigo and the ARIans have condemned.

This dispute was not caused by those posting on OL, or by its owners. We have been responding with incredulity and outrage at the Perigo invitation based on his own statements and conduct. Perigo, by his own actions, has discredited himself as a responsible proponent of Objectivism. If this behavior is ignored then it is about as clear an example of Rand's "SANCTION OF THE VICTIM" as one is likely to find.

This invitation to Perigo is so blatantly irrational that it makes me wonder if something else is going on here. But I have no idea what that might be.

TAS should correct their mistake before any further damage is done.

[Dragonfly]

This dispute was not caused by those posting on OL, or by its owners. We have been responding with incredulity and outrage at the Perigo invitation based on his own statements and conduct. Perigo, by his own actions, has discredited himself as a responsible proponent of Objectivism. If this behavior is ignored then it is about as clear an example of Rand's "SANCTION OF THE VICTIM" as one is likely to find.

Right, it's always the easy way out to blame other people for your own blunders.

This invitation to Perigo is so blatantly irrational that it makes me wonder if something else is going on here. But I have no idea what that might be.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

TAS should correct their mistake before any further damage is done.

It's too late, the damage is done. They've already lost all credibility, who can take that bunch now seriously? Thomas' cowardly evading Robert's questions speaks volumes.

[Wolf DeVoon]

OL appears to be the best there is, so if not here, where is there left to go?

Judith

Yep. The best there is. Something to think about, esp. for the future. No criticism of the crisis at TAS or discussion thereof. But a very interesting idea that maybe OL has more potential than we customarily assume.

W.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jerry,

Will Thomas's explanation (pretty consistently expressed in two different emails) is that

(1) Uniting the Objectivist movement is important;

[....]

They're succeeding brilliantly at doing that. (I.e., unreal.)

Ellen

___

[Greybird]

Robert makes an excellent point. Is there nowhere left to go to discuss Objectivism where one isn't constantly exposed to prepubescent name-calling and sneering?

If Bidinotto followed up on this by not creating cheap visual slanders of men of integrity, on the cover of his magazine, I might think he was sincere. But the point has merit, even though Bidinotto patently doesn't believe in one word of it.

[...] I've found it embarrassing to find things like "Pigero" and "SLOP" repeatedly on this site, as if they were funny, or profound, or making some coherent point. Don't tell me, "You don't know him," or "He deserves it." It doesn't matter if he does or if he does not; things like that demean the speaker. Back in seventh grade I expected such things of my peers. Not now.

Thank you, Judith. I said much the same thing several months ago, decrying those two terms among others, and was roundly derided for it.

Many here aren't at all against bashing and incivility as such. Only when it's done to their close friends. It also doesn't differ in kind from the practice of many of the denizens of Solo Passion. Those are simple statements of regrettable facts.

As for the last bit about seventh grade (and younger, methinks), I'm reminded of the bygone attitude behind the comment of Max (William Holden) to Diana (Faye Dunaway) in "Network": "I gave up comparing genitals back in the schoolyard." Well, the same should go for outdoing one another in coining nasty and pointless epithets.

[Chris Grieb]

Robert makes an excellent point. Is there nowhere left to go to discuss Objectivism where one isn't constantly exposed to prepubescent name-calling and sneering?

If Bidinotto followed up on this by not creating cheap visual slanders of men of integrity, on the cover of his magazine, I might think he was sincere. But the point has merit, even though Bidinotto patently doesn't believe in one word of it.

[...] I've found it embarrassing to find things like "Pigero" and "SLOP" repeatedly on this site, as if they were funny, or profound, or making some coherent point. Don't tell me, "You don't know him," or "He deserves it." It doesn't matter if he does or if he does not; things like that demean the speaker. Back in seventh grade I expected such things of my peers. Not now.

Thank you, Judith. I said much the same thing several months ago, decrying those two terms among others, and was roundly derided for it.

Many here aren't at all against bashing and incivility as such. Only when it's done to their close friends. It also doesn't differ in kind from the practice of many of the denizens of Solo Passion. Those are simple statements of regrettable facts.

As for the last bit about seventh grade (and younger, methinks), I'm reminded of the bygone attitude behind the comment of Max (William Holden) to Diana (Faye Dunaway) in "Network": "I gave up comparing genitals back in the schoolyard." Well, the same should go for outdoing one another in coining nasty and pointless epithets.

I think on the above post I am in complete agreement. We should remember the Katherine Hepburn character in "The African Queen" who says there are some man is supposed to rise above. We can be better than Lindsay.

[Dragonfly]

What a politically correct nonsense, "Pigero" and "SLOP" are just innocent little jokes. Compare those with terms like "piece of shit", "O'lying", "filthy, unutterably disgusting, low-life bitch". If you can't see the difference, you must be blind.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I agree with Dragonfly. There is a HUGE difference in kind, not just degree. I try to keep in mind that there is a fact of human nature: people usually ignore everything but their own private contexts when they go around telling others what to do.

There is an expression in Brazil that I adhere to.

I will pay the equivalent of a steer to avoid getting into a fight, but once pushed into it, I will pay the equivalent of a whole herd not to get out of it.

This is the condition I find myself in right now. It took a hell of a lot of pushing, goading, cussing, writing a book and many articles, etc., by others to get me into this fight. This went on for months without me reacting. Then it went on for a couple of years with my reaction being mostly banter (except during the Sciabarra smear). All this went WAY BEYOND "they did the first insult."

This is not a foodfight. This is a clash of worldviews. I despise everything that Perigo has done to Objectivism. I despise it.

I will be damned if I will leave this fight now just because it hurts the sensibilities of this person or that, or interferes with the plans for unifying the Objectivist movement by some people totally oblivious to the history that unfolded right before their eyes over months.

Perigo represents the worst of human nature, the worst of what to do with Objectivism, the worst of how to draw out the worst in people, and what is even worse, his whole production is mediocre. There is no excellence anywhere to be found in the attitude promoted on SLOP, except he likes some opera singers.

What crap! I will not sanction this with silence and being politically correct.

For those who are uncomfortable with all this, please keep in mind that it has a beginning, middle and end. Just don't read it until it is over. But you will not sway me to abandon completing this thing.

For the record, my purpose has almost nothing to do with Perigo's invitation to speak at TAS, although I cannot think of a more stupid policy decision. That merely represents the problem. Still, that is their business.

My purpose is to make it DAMN CLEAR and loudly in public that there will be no compromise on my part with mediocrity and the nastiness that the world-view Perigo represents.

EVER!

All attempts to get me to compromise with Perigo, Valliant, etc., are doomed to failure. I loathe tribalism placed over individualism. That contradicts everything Objectivism stands for in my mind. That has nothing to do with a rational productive world.

There is no "unifying" possible with that. Not if I am involved. TAS can unify with it. Others can unify with it. I will not.

People can come here and call that rationalization or use other Objectivist jargon that has practically lost meaning through misuse. I call it a moral choice and I mean it.

To such people: get the attempt to unite me with Perigo and everything he stands for off the table or I will distance myself from you, whoever you are.

Once that point is clear to the powers that be, and the point that other nasty attacks against OL, those I love and the values I hold dear will be met with strong and appropriate measures (and sometimes insignificant quips like "SLOP"), I am done.

I almost don't believe I have to say things like this. I have even recently stated that I would blow my brains out before accepting a worldview like Perigo's as the best life has to offer. (And my interest in Objectivism is precisely because it presents the best life has to offer.) How unclear was that? How can I make it any clearer?

Is this what Objectivism does to people's perception of reality? Turn them into Perigo or make them blind?

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

I agree with Dragonfly. There is a HUGE difference in kind, not just degree. I try to keep in mind that there is a fact of human nature: people usually ignore everything but their own private contexts when they go around telling others what to do.

There is an expression in Brazil that I adhere to.

I will pay the equivalent of a steer to avoid getting into a fight, but once pushed into it, I will pay the equivalent of a whole herd not to get out of it.

This is the condition I find myself in right now. It took a hell of a lot of pushing, goading, cussing, writing a book and many articles, etc., by others to get me into this fight. This went on for months without me reacting. Then it went on for a couple of years with my reaction being mostly banter (except during the Sciabarra smear). All this went WAY BEYOND "they did the first insult."

This is not a foodfight. This is a clash of worldviews. I despise everything that Perigo has done to Objectivism. I despise it.

I will be damned if I will leave this fight now just because it hurts the sensibilities of this person or that, or interferes with the plans for unifying the Objectivist movement by some people totally oblivious to the history that unfolded right before their eyes over months.

Perigo represents the worst of human nature, the worst of what to do with Objectivism, the worst of how to draw out the worst in people, and what is even worse, his whole production is mediocre. There is no excellence anywhere to be found in the attitude promoted on SLOP, except he likes some opera singers.

What crap! I will not sanction this with silence and being politically correct.

For those who are uncomfortable with all this, please keep in mind that it has a beginning, middle and end. Just don't read it until it is over. But you will not sway me to abandon completing this thing.

For the record, my purpose has almost nothing to do with Perigo's invitation to speak at TAS, although I cannot think of a more stupid policy decision. That merely represents the problem. Still, that is their business.

My purpose is to make it DAMN CLEAR and loudly in public that there will be no compromise on my part with mediocrity and the nastiness that the world-view Perigo represents.

EVER!

All attempts to get me to compromise with Perigo, Valliant, etc., are doomed to failure. I loathe tribalism placed over individualism. That contradicts everything Objectivism stands for in my mind. That has nothing to do with a rational productive world.

There is no "unifying" possible with that. Not if I am involved. TAS can unify with it. Others can unify with it. I will not.

People can come here and call that rationalization or use other Objectivist jargon that has practically lost meaning through misuse. I call it a moral choice and I mean it.

To such people: get the attempt to unite me with Perigo and everything he stands for off the table or I will distance myself from you, whoever you are.

Once that point is clear to the powers that be, and the point that other nasty attacks against OL, those I love and the values I hold dear will be met with strong and appropriate measures (and sometimes insignificant quips like "SLOP"), I am done.

I almost don't believe I have to say things like this. I have even recently stated that I would blow my brains out before accepting a worldview like Perigo's as the best life has to offer. (And my interest in Objectivism is precisely because it presents the best life has to offer.) How unclear was that? How can I make it any clearer?

Is this what Objectivism does to people's perception of reality? Turn them into Perigo or make them blind?

Michael

Michael, I am "sanctioning" your post. I hereby award you five dollar signs: $$$.

REB

[Jonathan]

What a politically correct nonsense, "Pigero" and "SLOP" are just innocent little jokes. Compare those with terms like "piece of shit", "O'lying", "filthy, unutterably disgusting, low-life bitch". If you can't see the difference, you must be blind.

Yeah, "Pigero" is simply the letters of "Perigo" rearranged to sound as much as possible like "Figaro." It's my way of paying tribute to his love of opera and to the pig-like qualities that he takes so much pride in.

Btw, I remember joking online once with Greybird and others about his claim that Pigero was daft and wasn't fit to lick Sciabarra's boot soles (I stood up for Pigero because I thought that he was perfectly suited to licking Sciabarra's boot soles). I guess Greybird is a different man since those days (which were much more recent than the seventh grade).

I'd also like to use this post as an opportunity to confess that I've just now initiated force against Pigero. I sent a friend a private e-mail which says things about Pigero that I haven't said publicly. So, according to Pigero's special brand of Objectivism that TAS is so interested in sharing with its seminar attendees, I guess that means that Pigero now has the right to use retaliatory force against me, so I definitely won't be attending the Summer Seminar, but will be hiding out instead.

J

[Ed Hudgins]

Before I resolve the issue of Lindsay Perigo’s appearance at the 2008 TAS Summer Seminar, I first want to weigh in again on the issue of civility.

I have voiced objections to Lindsay’s past incivility and I have challenged him to help undo the damage he has done by committing himself to a higher standard. But this is not to overlook the personality-focused incivility that is occurring on other discussion boards, including this one.

It is one thing to offer us reasons why you may think it is not a good idea, or why it might not serve TAS’s mission, to have Lindsay Perigo speak about the Objectivist movement at this event. I have received personal emails from some providing information that might be relevant to this matter.

But I have been deeply disturbed by some of the intemperate and speculative statements about him and us that are appearing on the discussion boards of both sides of this controversy. There is almost a kind of glee with which some pile onto Lindsay, in the same way that many at SOLO-Passion pile onto TAS. Just as I've criticized as counter-productive the juvenile name-calling on the SOLO-Passion site, so I criticize similar behavior on Objectivist Living--or anywhere else. (And seriously, folks, Mr. Perigo and his associates are not plotting to take over TAS; for one thing, I doubt they would want the responsibility of raising millions of dollars for our ongoing activities!)

Let me put into a personal context my interest in fostering a commitment to a mature, civil Objectivist movement--a movement that will attract rational and passionate adherents, rather than a vulgar and spiteful one that will drive away the thoughtful and distintegrate into ineffectual fratricide.

I have a public-policy background that informs my approach to this movement. Some of you know, for example, that as part of my work on international economic development, I helped lead Heritage Foundation delegations in 1989 and 1990 to the then-Soviet Union to conduct free-market seminars. I was under no illusions about the nature of that regime, and I accepted no “moral equivalence” view between the U.S. and USSR. I was looking for ways to undermine that Soviet regime. I didn’t want simply to denounce it and argue against it from the outside. I looked for other ways to affect change, to actually make a difference. We were criticized by some of our supporters at that time for associating with members of the Communist Party. But we judged that our actions might hasten change, and I think we made some small, positive contribution to ending a terrible tyranny.

In this case, we all profess to be Objectivists—individuals who start from the same premises and who profess adherence to a rational philosophy and a benevolent worldview. That’s why I am trying to devise ways to reduce the irrationality and malevolence found in the movement. I want “regime change.” That means stepping outside of fights that have no end in sight, and instead upholding standards to maintain the kind of public image consistent with a philosophy of reason.

This does not mean blinding myself to past wrongs, or ignoring the fact that some are morally more culpable than others for instigating these problems and exacerbating the current toxic atmosphere. It does not mean expecting those who have suffered personally from Perigo-SOLO assaults to deal with him.

It does mean, for those of us who are in a position to do so, trying to secure commitments from all to at least one common goal--repudiating undignified statements and irrational behavior that only sully the public image of our philosophy.

There will always be factions in any movement or school of thought. I also know that debates and discussions--especially online--can become heated, especially among Objectivists, who have deep-seated moral commitments. And there will always be personal differences that will prompt certain individuals not to deal others.

But there are effective ways to communicate, clearly and unmistakably, one’s disagreements with others--even one’s harshest moral assessments of them--without sinking to childish taunts, or obsessive, never-ending preoccupations about their latest words and deeds. Some seem to forget that statements published on the Internet are archived forever for the entire world to see, and for future generations to ponder. It therefore would be useful for those who have been critical of SOLO and Lindsay Perigo, as I have, to give at least a little thought to the harmful impact that their own personal insults, gratuitous psychologizing, conspiracy theorizing, and juvenile name-calling are having on their reputations--and on the reputations of our movement and philosophy.

It might turn out that the Objectivist community will always be divided into feuding factions. It might be that neither SOLO nor Lindsay will ever change their ways. It might just take a lot of time to change things--or it might be that I am wasting my time by expecting anything better.

We at TAS certainly will keep most of our focus on promoting Objectivism through our own efforts. We are always looking for improvements for our Summer Seminar, The New Individualist, and our other activities. Those are things under our direct control.

But the wider Objectivist movement is not. All we can do is to try to serve as a better example and try to call others to a higher standard. Objectivism is, above all, a philosophy of reason; and to win hearts and minds, it must be promoted reasonably.

That is why I sincerely hope that all of us will uphold the standard of reason in our own statements and actions, even--or perhaps especially--when we are provoked by justifiable anger to sink to the very behavior that we criticize.

[Brant Gaede]

Uh, this means making up with the Ayn Rand Institute, Ed.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed,

I appreciate you coming here and explaining what you are doing. So I will be brief.

I admire TAS.

I want no part of Perigo. I despise him and what he stands for.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

I have a public-policy background that informs my approach

Achoo.

Linz is a broadcast personality, talk show host, specializes in public policy yap.

How's that for a mature, undisturbing, civilized movement?

Perigo comes off looking good compared to Saint Hudgins.

[sjw]

I think Ed and probably many people think that the reason why the Objectivist movement is a failure is because of the "schismatics." If they could only get people to get along then maybe it'd start being more successful.

I think the truth is exactly the opposite. This little spat with TAS/MSK/Perigo is in the big picture meaningless. Even if they did all join hands and ARI too, it wouldn't make any difference, the movement would still be a failure. ARI, TAS, Solopassion, RoR, doesn't matter, they're all failures if the standard is progress toward real cultural changes.

The movement has been without a vision since the days of NBI when Nathaniel Branden left. It has never regained that vision or a new vision to carry it forward. The leadership on all fronts has utterly failed. All that's left are Ayn Rand fans and spats, and some good lectures here and there, mostly by Leonard Peikoff from past decades. Most everything else is wistful wishful thinking.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

For those of us who are in a position to do so -- repudiating undignified statements and irrational behavior that only sully the public image of our philosophy.

Oh-oh. I'm in big trouble now. Oh, shit! I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry.

[Judith]

Ed, that was well said. Thanks for a cool head and a voice of sanity in the midst of all this turmoil.

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I need to wrap my mind around something and I am having one hell of a time with it. I just saw the following title on SOLOP.

Statement to O-Living

by Ed Hudgins

I went there and it was Ed's latest post above. Up to here, all well and good. Ed posts where Ed wants to post. I have no opinion about that.

But now my problem. Is it me, or is Ed saying that HE can post about Objectivist Living on SOLOP, but he does not want anyone on Objectivist Living to post here about SOLOP?

My mind is starting to go into a pretzel trying to figure all this out...

Michael

[Judith]

I will be damned if I will leave this fight now....

...

My purpose is to make it DAMN CLEAR and loudly in public that there will be no compromise on my part with mediocrity and the nastiness that the world-view Perigo represents.

All attempts to get me to compromise with Perigo, Valliant, etc., are doomed to failure. I loathe tribalism placed over individualism. That contradicts everything Objectivism stands for in my mind. That has nothing to do with a rational productive world.

...

To such people: get the attempt to unite me with Perigo and everything he stands for off the table or I will distance myself from you, whoever you are.

Once that point is clear to the powers that be, and the point that other nasty attacks against OL, those I love and the values I hold dear will be met with strong and appropriate measures (and sometimes insignificant quips like "SLOP"), I am done.

Michael --

I have some questions for you. I ask you -- please -- as a friend -- don't answer them for a day. Give it that long to consider this thing coolly, under different lights, and not in the heat of a single moment.

What exactly is the nature of this fight?

Who are you fighting?

Who are the powers that be?

Who is trying to make you unite with Perigo?

Who -- exactly -- do you want to know that you want nothing to do with Perigo, and what will it take to achieve that goal?

Judith

[sjw]

But now my problem. Is it me, or is Ed saying that HE can post about Objectivist Living on SOLOP, but he does not want anyone on Objectivist Living to post here about SOLOP?

My mind is starting to go into a pretzel trying to figure all this out...

This is just old-fashioned sanction of the victim. To be "polite" you're supposed to excuse everything Perigo has done. It's ironic that "tolerant" TAS and SOLOP of all places would join forces...

Shayne

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

In fact, I first saw Ed's statement at the top of the blue area on SOLOPassion... then had to hunt around several parts of this site to find it buried toward the end of a thread here.

Confusing, to say the least.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

I don't need to wait because I am not angry in the manner you say. Here is the premise of it all:

OL is not a movement.

It is just a bunch of individuals interested in Objectivism who like hanging out. Some people are treating it as a movement and that is part of where the friction is coming from.

My fight with Perigo, Valliant & Co. is my own. If you are interested, I can point you to moutains of material (someday) to how this developed, presuming that you would read all that crap. Those who voice agreement with me are speaking in their own name, not mine. They have their own stories.

Every single one of them.

That should say it all.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's ironic that "tolerant" TAS and SOLOP of all places would join forces...

Shayne,

I can't resist this one. It is just too funny.

It isn't ironic. This is simply the Objectivst subculture. These things happen here in goofball-land.

(And imagine that. All this is recorded for all time...)

Michael

[Judith]

I don't need to wait because I am not angry in the manner you say.

No, but I think that the questions I asked need more thought than you gave them.

Michael, there ARE no "powers that be". No one is trying to "make" you do anything. Who are you fighting?

Judith