Do I Not Comprehend the Written Word?


Barbara Branden

Recommended Posts

Do I Not Comprehend the Written Word?

I do not understand why discussion continues as to whether or not Lindsay Perigo is to speak at the next Atlas Society Summer Seminar.

I read Ed Hudgin’s article, “The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar," and then I read Lindsay Perigo’s response to it on his forum, and I thought the issue was settled. This is why I thought it.

Speaking eloquently of TAS’s commitment to civility in discussion, Ed wrote that one source of the incivility in the Objectivist world has been The Ayn Rand Institute, and that "A second source of this incivility -- where juvenile name-calling and vulgar insults are characteristically equated with a commitment to 'passion' -- has been the website SOLO Passion." He identified Lindsay Perigo as "a chief practitioner and trend-setter for that approach."

Ed explained that it was because Perigo had given quality presentations at Seminars in the past, "and hoping to promote greater harmony within the Objectivist movement, Will [Thomas] invited Lindsay Perigo to the Summer Seminar...." He added, "Given the post-invitation discussions he's led at SOLO Passion, we now wonder whether we are about to be blind-sided."

Ed issued a challenge, "I want Lindsay Perigo to commit publicly to joining me in undoing the incivility in the movement that he himself has too frequently helped to foster."

Perigo then responded to this, on SOLO, "Jeez! Should I stop beating my wife at the same time, Ed?"

Ed wrote, "I would like Lindsay to commit to this wider goal of building an open and civil Objectivist movement and to start it with Solo-Passion, the forum for so much ill will. I want to hear some proposals...."

Perigo responded, "Well, that’s too bad, Ed, because I’m not going to make any.... I can’t guarantee it will always be civil (nor do I owe you or anyone such a guarantee), but I say again, any incivility usually begins with the moral equivalence/civility crowd. [This "crowd" refers to TAS, among others, as Perigo has stated innumerable times, and as he again makes clear in his next comment.

Perigo wrote. "Ed, in spite of your disclaimer, you are committing the venerable fallacy of moral equivalence, whereby civility is unconditional and indiscriminate. My position, for the record, yet again, is that civility should always be one’s starting point in dealing with others, but that one is not obligated to maintain it towards proven stinkers. Further, in the latter case, one will usually be justified in calling them stinkers."

Ed wrote, "I await a constructive public response and commitment from Lindsay, which will help us to determine whether his talk at the 20008 Summer Seminar will be consistent with our mission and purposes."

Despite having earlier claimed that his talks would not contain personal references or invective, Perigo now responded, "I will not tailor my comments or actions to a lynch mob, and neither should you."

These comments by Perigo are clear: Ed's challenge, which constituted his attempt to clear the way for Perigo to speak at the Seminar, was refused. If this did not settle the issue, I fail to understand the reason.

Barbara

Postscript: As if to give the final evidence in action that Solo's policies will not change, the Solo posters who responded to Ed continued their usual vitriolic attacks on TAS and "the Brandens," unchallenged by Perigo and culminating in the latter's new high in his particular version of "civility", his statement about me: "the filthy, unutterably disgusting, low-life bitch."

Let me add that neither I, nor, by my understanding, anyone else on OL, is suggesting that The Atlas Society turn its power of decision over to others; Its policy decisions can and should be made only by its principals and directors. But the outpouring of objections and outrage, both on some Objectivist forums and off-line, is a manifestation of the grief and pain felt by those who share TAS's principles and commitments and who feel betrayed. The problem is not Lindsay Perigo; the problem is their conviction, and mine, that such an invitation is inconsistent with those principles and commitments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In answer to your poignant question, Barbara: yes, you most certainly do.

Unfortunately, your comprehension is not the decisive factor here.

The decisive factor is the resolve of TAS and Ed Hudgins to mean what they say.

We will see, soon, perhaps, the status of that resolve.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara, I think your post expresses how a neutral third-party would evaluate the back-and-forth between Ed and Lindsay. If Ed really intended to extract a promise from Lindsay that he would "behave himself" at the seminar, well, he didn't get that promise.

People have made their views known, and I think the best approach is to vote with our feet, whether to decide not to go to the seminar, or to go, and to avoid Lindsay's talks. Either way, TAS will get the message.

Perigo is not a believer in civility. He thinks civility in the face of "evil" is a vice. Here's what I would've told him on that thread, if I hadn't avoided it because I don't want to get piled onto and pummelled!!

In deciding if anything is a virtue or not, we have to look at what we're trying to accomplish. If you are trying to sway opinions, I think unconditional civility can be very effective. Take Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an example. Here's a woman who is unfailingly civil, and that's what knocks your socks off when you watch her speak. Think about the characters in Atlas Shrugged. Were any of the heroes ever uncivil? I can't think of an instance. How did Francisco conduct himself at dinner parties? Even when Dagny shot the guard, she was polite to him first!

I think Perigo doesn't consider civility to be an option for a couple of reasons. One, he thinks that being polite to an opponent is immoral. I don't know why he thinks this. Two, it's a personality trait - he's naturally uncivil. Three, it's a way to get his crowd, the people who already agree with him, all whipped up - he's a showman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perigo is not a believer in civility. He thinks civility in the face of "evil" is a vice.

That's partly true, but it's not the problem. The real issue is that he wants to pretend that his own behavior, which he has admitted is "unjust," is "rational passion." He believed that he didn't have to stop indulging in unjust behavior, but could continue apologizing for it after the fact. That's why Barbara stopped associating with him. She told him that she would no longer accept his apologies for abusing people (not just her) if he wasn't going to do something about controlling himself. That's it. Nothing more. No one was demanding that he not express justified anger.

Also, lately the SOLOP crew seems to be trying to spin the issue so that people think that Linz's anger with Barbara came about because he read PARC and agreed with its conclusions. That's reversing cause and effect. What actually happened is that Linz is using PARC as a way of getting back at Barbara for having ended her relationship with him. Their split had nothing to do with PARC or Rand, but with how Linz was treating friends and allies who disagreed with him or politely questioned him about SOLO's policies. PARC wasn't even published yet when he was throwing his friendship-ending tantrums.

One, he thinks that being polite to an opponent is immoral.

He seems to reserve most of his rage for friends and allies. I've seen and heard some of his television and radio appearances, and he's never treated his opponents in the way that he treats fellow Objectivists. He might call non-Objectivists names behind their backs while posting on his obscure, insular website, but not to their faces, and not with anything approaching the rage displayed toward Objectivists (and for strictly Objectivist audiences). Frankly, I don't think he would have the balls to publicly quote examples of his own "rational passion" outside of his little fiefdom. He knows what a lunatic he'd look like if he shared his "rational passion" with people who are not attracted to lunacy.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laure; Thank you! Your comments about Rand's heroes expressed my thoughts I have had on the whole subject.

I am still hoping that Ed wants to give Lindsay enough rope so that when he opens the trap door on the gallows it will be seen as an act of a great patient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about the characters in Atlas Shrugged. Were any of the heroes ever uncivil? I can't think of an instance. How did Francisco conduct himself at dinner parties? Even when Dagny shot the guard, she was polite to him first!

Well said, Laure. I've been wanting to say something like this, but you came along and did it better than I could have done.

Judith

Edited by Judith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about the characters in Atlas Shrugged. Were any of the heroes ever uncivil? I can't think of an instance. How did Francisco conduct himself at dinner parties? Even when Dagny shot the guard, she was polite to him first!

Well said, Laure. I've been wanting to say something like this, but you came along and did it better than I could have done.

Atlas is a work of fiction. It is essentialized. You don't have scenes showing the heroes waking up and taking a shower and such either but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. The upshot is that refering to what isn't in Atlas isn't an argument for not doing it. If you want to make an argument that somebody shouldn't say something, then you'll have to rely on yourself, not on illegitimate comparisons to works of fiction.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand's fictional figures were civil to a fault at times. "But I don't think of you" instead of a ham-handed jaw-breaker (literal) kind of thing. Sometimes a bloody nose is quite an eloquent manner of communication. :)

But Rand liked the smart-aleck bon mot rather than cussing or brawling.

She certainly could be uncivil to a fault on her bad days. I don't like that part of her, at least I don't like to emulate it. (There are exceptions, but they are rare and sporadic.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about the characters in Atlas Shrugged. Were any of the heroes ever uncivil? I can't think of an instance. How did Francisco conduct himself at dinner parties? Even when Dagny shot the guard, she was polite to him first!

Well said, Laure. I've been wanting to say something like this, but you came along and did it better than I could have done.

Atlas is a work of fiction. It is essentialized. You don't have scenes showing the heroes waking up and taking a shower and such either but that doesn't mean they didn't do it. The upshot is that refering to what isn't in Atlas isn't an argument for not doing it. If you want to make an argument that somebody shouldn't say something, then you'll have to rely on yourself, not on illegitimate comparisons to works of fiction.

All right. I didn't want to use this example because it reeks of obsequiousness, but damn it, it's true.

In all of the mess with Perigo and Barbara, or with anyone else and Barbara, have you ever once seen Barbara sink to the level of name-calling, sneering, or other behavior unfit for civilized society? She has been a class act throughout it all. Others would do well to follow her example.

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all of the mess with Perigo and Barbara, or with anyone else and Barbara, have you ever once seen Barbara sink to the level of name-calling, sneering, or other behavior unfit for civilized society? She has been a class act throughout it all. Others would do well to follow her example.

So your position then is that Michael has been sinking to the level of name-calling, sneering, and other behavior unfit for civilized society? If that's not what you're saying then I don't get the point of your lectures. You seem to keep telling Michael to shut up because he's already said something or other, but I think you're the one going on and on about nothing.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed, I am refusing to go to the summer seminar as long as that invitation to Perigo stands. I will not help TAS pay for Linz to travel from New Zealand as well as cover his accommodations, Perhaps Perigo is skilled at public speaking and maybe he put on a great show several years ago with a talk called Elixir of Life, but now he is invited to give talks bashing others in the Objectivist community and people who don't share his musical tastes. Is this what you want?

Perigo has nothing positive to offer. His greatest talent nowadays is stirring up Linz-mobs to spread hatred throughout the Objectivist community. This man's sole contribution to Objectivism over the last 2 years or so has been to smear good people in the Objectivist community such as Barbara Branden and Chris Sciabarra as well as bash and alienate countless other former friends, allies and most of the contributing authors to Free Radical and the original SoloHQ. Anyone who has watched this guy over time can see him turn his friends into enemies time and time again. This is NOT the way to unite the Objectivist community. Perigo's rational passion is fueled by malice. ICK! Like Michael, I loathe what Perigo stands for.

The fact that Perigo, of all people, received a special invitation to speak at the summer seminar is a slap in the face to many of us at Objectivist Living. This timing of this invitation is curious to say the least, but I won't speculate on that here. The Atlas Society events are where many OL members gather and get to interact in person. This has effectively ruined my summer vacation. I will certainly miss seeing many of our friends at the summer seminar. That is just one of the reasons some of us are upset about this. But there's more.

Considering that for the last two years Perigo's primary activity has been promoting PARC, a book written specifically against my good friend Barbara and her ex-husband Nathaniel Branden as well as his various campaigns to trash the Atlas Society, Objectivist Living and others, inviting Linz is an insult. Do you like being insulted in your own home? I don't. And what I don't like is that nobody at TAS seems willing to take any responsibility for doing something they had to know would upset and alienate many of their regular supporters who attend Atlas Society events. The conference is several months away and he can be disinvited.

TAS tried to wiggle out of this one by wagging their fingers and calling us uncivil for being majorly ticked off. Well, inviting Linz after all he has done to Barbara, Chris and others is an extremely hostile action against Barbara and those of us who love her. We thought TAS loved Barbara too, especially after the 50th anniversary event. Alas, actions speak louder than words...By inviting Linz to speak, you are promoting PARC.

Do you get it now?

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....but now he is invited to give talks bashing others in the Objectivist community and people who don't share his musical tastes.

Kat,

I agree that this "musicological inquisition" show of Linz is just terrible. I do not share your tastes (I believe you are a Beatles fan), but I think its fair to say that Linz would consider both of our tastes to be indicative of a malevolent sense of life.

I certainly would not want to hear a talk claiming that I am some sort of psychologically disintegrated heretic on the grounds of my CD collection. Its like the witch-hunt carried out against goths post-Columbine.

I hope that the Objectivist community can finally get over this "musical litmus test" attitude. Im sure you share my position on that issue.

-Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that the Objectivist community can finally get over this "musical litmus test" attitude. Im sure you share my position on that issue.

I think the O'ist community had (at least mostly) gotten over it regarding music, except for Linz's insistence on continuing it with personal brow-beating on the lists he's been on. Thus I was terribly dismayed at that talk's title having been accepted, since I think it's a title no one should be giving as an invited talk. (Its being allowed as a Participant-Sponsored session would have been another issue, although I still wouldn't have been happy about that.)

There's still a fair distance to go getting over the "litmus test" attitude with other art forms besides music.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, considering the announcement that Linz has been disinvited, my previous post to Ed may seem a bit odd. The posts crossed, but I'm leaving it up so people can better understand why there was such a ruckus around here.

Ed, I don't know why you let that invitation go out, knowing what I know you know about Perigo, but you did the right thing in the end. Thank you.

Andrew, about music... back in the old days on the old solohq forum, I actually believed I would be banned for my musical tastes, but it didn't happen that way. I was banned quite a bit later when they started going after Brandenoids. People can listen to whatever music they like and still be Objectivists IMHO. I'm a classic rocker, Michael is classical, Tina (Inky) is a bit goth, but her tastes in music are all over the place. We are all Objectivists in this household despite the fact that we have a wide variety of musical tastes. What you like is part of who you are and one of the things that makes us unique individuals. Many Objectivists share Ayn Rand's musical tastes and some don't. It doesn't really matter anyway.

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All right. I didn't want to use this example because it reeks of obsequiousness, but damn it, it's true.

In all of the mess with Perigo and Barbara, or with anyone else and Barbara, have you ever once seen Barbara sink to the level of name-calling, sneering, or other behavior unfit for civilized society? She has been a class act throughout it all. Others would do well to follow her example.

Judith

All right, Judith, I didn't want to say this, but I think you're being focused on specific details of language used and ignoring a substantive elephant in the room here. No, I am not claiming that Linz's behavior is justified. I hope I have made crystal clear that I am no fan of Linz Perigo's. But in regard to one issue he does have a legitimate grievance. Regrettably Barbara re-awakened that very issue. No, she hasn't used bad language. She's just accused him again of being an alcoholic.

The "Drooling Best" post by James Kilbourne was a bad mistake, and uncalled for however genuine the concern for Linz's well-beling. Barbara's misunderstanding Linz's posting it as acceding to the charge was a further mistake. I don't know if Barbara ever apologized for that. Her now having again referred to Linz's drinking gives him the one legitimate grievance in the whole commotion.

Substance, not just details of particular wordings you dislike, is an important factor in what is and isn't an example to be followed.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's just accused him again of being an alcoholic.

Ellen,

Where?

Again??? Two times? Where?

Any old quote will do...

Michael

Oh, c'mon, what does this mean?

And I see a man often befuddled by alcohol, which serves to make him still more grandiose and still more irrational. As you may know, he has very often in the past excused one or another of his forum tantrums by saying he had had too much to drink; apparently he hasn't done that lately, because even his cronies were not taking it seriously any longer. Now, he defends his invective-filled tantrums as "rational passion."

(Also see your own subsequent post following up by discussing Linz's drinking at some considerable length: Here.)

Are you going to reply that your problem with my description is her not having used the actual word "alcoholic"? If so, ok, I'll edit the wording to "irresponsible drinker," if you'd prefer. But I'll still have the same objection: it wasn't what I'd call an example to be followed to bring up the subject of Linz's drinking again.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

This is a double-standard I reject. Here are the two standards:

1. A man is entitled to get drunk, post crap, recant, later saying he was drunk (but maybe saying it wasn't the drink, of course), time and time again. He can sing the praises of alcohol time and time again. He can show behavior typical of drunks time and time again. He can slander as many people as he wants to while under the influence, too. He can do all that because he has free speech.

2. The observer has no free speech. The observer is muffled from stating in public what the dude is doing in public because she will interfere with his free speech and possibly make people see what he himself admits to doing.

Crap.

I don't go for that. She can say what she sees. She has free speech, too.

Alcoholic is a different charge. I happen to like "often befuddled by alcohol." In other words, often drunk in public. With a chip on his shoulder about it, too. Daring anyone to notice.

You can be cowed by him into adopting a double-standard. I won't be. And I applaud Barbara because she wasn't either.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's just accused him again of being an alcoholic.

Ellen,

Where?

Again??? Two times? Where?

Any old quote will do...

Michael

Oh, c'mon, what does this mean?

And I see a man often befuddled by alcohol, which serves to make him still more grandiose and still more irrational. As you may know, he has very often in the past excused one or another of his forum tantrums by saying he had had too much to drink; apparently he hasn't done that lately, because even his cronies were not taking it seriously any longer. Now, he defends his invective-filled tantrums as "rational passion."

(Also see your own subsequent post following up by discussing Linz's drinking at some considerable length: Here.)

Are you going to reply that your problem with my description is her not having used the actual word "alcoholic"? If so, ok, I'll edit the wording to "irresponsible drinker," if you'd prefer. But I'll still have the same objection: it wasn't what I'd call an example to be followed to bring up the subject of Linz's drinking again.

Ellen

___

Ellen, when there's a 500 pound gorilla in the room, it is "civility" not to mention it?

Would any sane, sober person who purports to be an Objectivist -- more, one worth taken seriously as an insightful, motivational speaker -- utter the vicious obscenity Linz did about Barbara ("the filthy, unutterably disgusting, low-life bitch") at any time, let alone at the precise moment when he knows a speaking engagement is hanging in the balance and everyone this side of ARI is avidly watching to see how he comports himself?

Barbara, thank you for your courage and your clear vision, and I am so sorry that you have to be subjected to all of....this.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her now having again referred to Linz's drinking gives him the one legitimate grievance in the whole commotion.

I mostly agree. I think that the accusations of alcohol abuse should be dropped.

Barbara is correct in her recent post that Linz had blamed his tirades on too much booze. Perhaps he was just "joking" in the same way that he was "joking" about the announced title of his now-canceled TAS speech on music, but I took him to be at least semi-serious, and to be perhaps trying to create an image of himself as a tough guy -- big Kiwi barroom brawler. His comments on his own drinking are what led me to write, in response to the furor caused by the Drooling Beast article, that even though I was disgusted by Kilbourne's accusation of alcoholism, at least it was more accurate than many of the accusations Linz had made against others and the names he had called them, since there was at least something resembling substance to the claim of Linz's alcoholism, where there was nothing to support many of Linz's personal smears of others.

But, having said that, I think that his admissions of drinking and his past attempt at blaming his temper tantrums on booze (I say "attempt" -- singular -- because I remember only one time that he offered up boozing as an excuse for his tirades) are not sufficient evidence for me to agree that he is "often befuddled by alcohol." So I would encourage people to drop the issue (for whatever my encouragement is worth).

Isn't it enough that Linz is often befuddled by just being Linz?

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue of drinking or not is only important because of the chip on the shoulder daring someone to knock it off while trying to shove down everyone's throats that getting drunk is rational passion.

I think it's good to get drunk once in a while (although I can't anymore). Sometimes that is a good pressure valve.

I don't think it's good to make a disgusting public spectacle out of yourself when drunk, then dare anyone to say anything about it. I say this. If you do it in public, then you have to put up with what the public says about it. If you don't like what the public says, don't do it in public.

Simple.

I'm sick and tired of all the intimidation. I am part of the public, so I say what I see.

EDIT: Actually, on thinking it over, I have seen that dude "often befuddled by alcohol." So I should say so since it became an issue. I have seen it online with his own words to back it up. I have seen him not befuddled by alcohol, too. I have seen both states in the same man. I don't speak for Barbara, but I am sure she has seen both states, too. Why should she leave one state out? And since when does being drunk in public require politically correct language out of the observer? Is that some new form of Objectivism I don't know about?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen, please recall the context in which I referred to Perigo's drinking. (And please note that I used the word "often" to describe it, which is not to call him a Skid Row drunk.) The context was my response to Ed Hudgns' statement of TAS policy, and I prefaced my reference by saying:

"I believe I have grasped the difference between us in this matter, which was bewildering to me before. I think it is not the case that we have a similar estimate of the man[Perigo], but that we differ on whether TAS should extend an olive branch to him and can reasonably expect that he will change his behavior.."...

I then explained my own view of Perigo as differentiated from what I believed to be Ed's view of him, and, in order to give Ed information relevant to Perigo's appearance that I believed he did not have, I wrote: "And I see a man often befuddled by alcohol, which serves to make him still more grandiose and still more irrational." I concluded by saying:

"This is a man who is out of control, and if he agrees to your terms you will have on your hands a pathetic, (yes, even I can see the pathos of his deterioration) severely emotionally disturbed man who can be set off into total irrationality by any perceived slight – and who perceives slights in the least disagreement with his positions on any and all subjects."

Jonathan, you wrote that you do not have enough evidence to agree that Perigo is "often befuddled by alcohol." But you have not, I believe, met him in social contexts nor read his many excuses on Solo for intemperate behavior. I have. And this was information Ed needed to be aware of.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now