Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Daniel Barnes]

I want to draw attention to a clear implication of the material from Rand's own pen which I posted in #770 and #771.

This material demonstrates that what might be called the "tone" of the NBI atmosphere had Rand's approval -- even received her fervent defense upon Hospers' raising objections. An attempt to lay all the cult-like and stultifying-to-thought effects of the NBI atmosphere at Nathaniel's door isn't supportable in the light of Rand's own response to what Hospers was attempting to tell her.

I think it these are resoundingly clear examples, Ellen. What's interesting is that one of the usually unstated premises of Rand's philosophy breaks cover here:

Rand: "Therefore, we offer these lectures only to those who have understood enough of Atlas Shrugged to agree with its essentials."

In short: If you understand "Atlas Shrugged", you will agree with the essentials.

This implies: If you don't agree with the essentials of "Atlas Shrugged", you don't understand it.

Now, there may be a number of reasons why you don't understand "Atlas Shrugged", and these block you from agreeing with it.

1) Perhaps you are not intelligent enough

2) Perhaps you are intelligent enough, but you are psychologically conflicted; therefore you disagree with it, despite recognising its truth at some level. The sources of this psychological conflict could be anything from the generally malign influences of modern philosophy - thus perhaps you are recoverable - through to "there is no why"-type of primary refusal to think, which could reach back to your cradle or even your DNA for all we know.

This is not comprehensive, but from this thumbnail we can immediately see that this concealed premise seems to both fundamentally prevent the "intelligent disagreement" that Rand claimed to have been searching for, and to account for Objectivism's (and its founder's) fondness for wild pseudo-psychological speculations.

(Perhaps a hint of 2) pops up in that strange melange of both condescension and self-pity that composes the last para of the letter to Hospers. "I know that this is a conflict within you." Not a conflict between us?)

[Alfonso Jones]

What's interesting is that one of the usually unstated premises of Rand's philosophy breaks cover here:

Rand: "Therefore, we offer these lectures only to those who have understood enough of Atlas Shrugged to agree with its essentials."

In short: If you understand "Atlas Shrugged", you will agree with the essentials.

This implies: If you don't agree with the essentials of "Atlas Shrugged", you don't understand it.

I think there is another simple possibility.

The lectures are offered to those who have understood the essentials of Atlas Shrugged AND agree with its essentials. Those who have understood it, and disagree - aren't going to be interested in the lectures anyhow.

Now, I know that is not what Rand wrote. She could have written "to those who have understood the essentials of Atlas Shrugged AND agree with its essentials," which is what you would presumably prefer here. But I don't think there would have been people who would have understood the essentials of Atlas Shrugged, disagreed with its essentials AND STILL wanted to attend NBI lectures...

Beyond that, why did she write this the way she did - I think that she is exhibiting the confidence of someone in their creation. To what extent did she believe it possible to UNDERSTAND her ideas and still reject them? That's a subject for a lot of citations... The example of Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead is interesting in this regard.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Maybe it's me, but boy is the emotional blackmail coming through loud and clear in Rand's letter.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Maybe it's me, but boy is the emotional blackmail coming through loud and clear in Rand's letter.

Michael

The tone is certainly there.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Ellen Stuttle]

James Valliant to Linz Perigo:

[Here]

Thank you so much, Linz, it means a lot to me. If I had a dime for every private "atta-boy" I've gotten, I'd be a very rich man, but there are those, like you, who've expressed a courage at least the equal of my own.

Does he mean a foolhardiness equal to his own in not throwing in the towel and conceding that he did a lousy job? My advice to James Valliant, were he inclined to take my advice, would be to scrap PARC and do it over, this time intelligently. (There could be an intelligent critique of features of the Brandens' respective books, but PARC isn't that critique.)

Ellen

___

Edited July 5, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[william.scherk]

I want to draw attention to a clear implication of the material from Rand's own pen which I posted in #770 and #771.

This material demonstrates that what might be called the "tone" of the NBI atmosphere had Rand's approval -- even received her fervent defense upon Hospers' raising objections. An attempt to lay all the cult-like and stultifying-to-thought effects of the NBI atmosphere at Nathaniel's door isn't supportable in the light of Rand's own response to what Hospers was attempting to tell her.

I was struck by three things in Rand's response: the tone, the language, and the appeal to authority.

First she agreed that the NBI audience might absorb the lecture unthinkingly, but she bristled at an implication that she and Branden wanted this. She then drew a picture of any such audience members as "evading, cowardly, 'social metaphysicians'" and "weaklings," and made no bones about her hurt at Hospers taking the weakling side. As if only cowardice and evasion could explain someone lapping up Branden's proclamations without a burp of independent thought.

The tone was not particularly surprising. This is John Galt speaking, after all -- and Galt does not contend, argue or debate, he proclaims. The language was not particularly surprising, especially as I am now reading her journals: there is a ripe crop of disdainful language, dismissive language.

What was somewhat surprising was how personally she took the criticism of the delivery: there appeared to be nothing whatever she or Branden would or could or should do differently in presenting.

I was struck too by one line: that the lectures were open to those who read and accepted the primacy of Atlas Shrugged . . . as a minimum; NBI offers the lectures "only to those who have understood enough of Atlas Shrugged to agree with its essentials."

(I wonder if this begs the question of how one would restrict the attendance . . . if you offer the lectures only to the best, how do you keep out the weaklings and cowards? Later, it seems, any weaklings and cowards would be dealt with as was the Hungarian gentleman: 'if you have read Atlas Shrugged, if you profess to be an admirer of mine, then you should know that Galt does not "strive," "debate," "argue," or "contend"' . . . 'If you wish to speak to me, first learn to remember to whom and about what you are speaking!')

As Ellen points out, laying NBI's sins of cultishness solely at Branden's feet is contradicted by these excerpts. It is clear from the letter that "Nathan and I" were completely in accordance . . . if the weaklings and social metaphysicians arrived at a dogmatic certainty that everything Rand/Branden proclaimed was true, it was their own danged fault.

How dare you, John, address these criticisms to me . . . who has done more than any human being alive in the history of life on earth to defy dogmatism. Don't add to my burden of misunderstanding and dismissal.

I think, perhaps, Valliant apes this supreme self-confidence -- and the hurt.

Edited July 5, 2008 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

Maybe it's me, but boy is the emotional blackmail coming through loud and clear in Rand's letter.

Michael

The tone is certainly there.

Bill P (Alfonso)

The letter so well illustrates the bind they were all in in trying to have a relationship with her. She had it sewed up so that if they attempted to make reasonable criticisms, they were told that they were penalizing her for her virtues, etc. And with her powerful and persistent gift of arguing, there was no way they could break through this and get her to hear.

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

Maybe it's me, but boy is the emotional blackmail coming through loud and clear in Rand's letter.

Michael

The tone is certainly there.

Bill P (Alfonso)

The letter so well illustrates the bind they were all in in trying to have a relationship with her. She had it sewed up so that if they attempted to make reasonable criticisms, they were told that they were penalizing her for her virtues, etc. And with her powerful and persistent gift of arguing, there was no way they could break through this and get her to hear.

Ellen

___

I do hope those reading can envision the pain faced by those around Rand, as well as by Rand.

Those around Rand - as you have documented (but not in these words), they could hardly speak except as disciples seeking enlightenment. Independence of mind was valued in theory, but the practice was that honest questioning (or disagreement on musical or literary taste, ...) was quickly taken to reveal a bad psycho-epistemology, social metaphysics, a malevolent view of the universe, you name it . . .

And for Rand - who so clearly wanted interaction with first-rate minds who would relate to her and discuss ideas - trapped in a web whose design she was at least complicit in, shut off from them.

One observation nags at me, however --- I think of the last third of Atlas Shrugged. When do you see ANYBODY (of the "good guys") disagree with or even seriously question Galt on ANYTHING? I can recall Francisco's interchange with Galt about pity --- "Pity, John?" --- but that's about it. Other than Dagny's initial refusal to go on strike.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Daniel Barnes]

I think, perhaps, Valliant apes this supreme self-confidence -- and the hurt.

Good post, William.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think it these are resoundingly clear examples, Ellen. What's interesting is that one of the usually unstated premises of Rand's philosophy breaks cover here:

Rand: "Therefore, we offer these lectures only to those who have understood enough of Atlas Shrugged to agree with its essentials."

In short: If you understand "Atlas Shrugged", you will agree with the essentials.

This implies: If you don't agree with the essentials of "Atlas Shrugged", you don't understand it.

[....]

[...] from this thumbnail we can immediately see that this concealed premise seems to both fundamentally prevent the "intelligent disagreement" that Rand claimed to have been searching for, and to account for Objectivism's (and its founder's) fondness for wild pseudo-psychological speculations.

[....]

Agreed about the prevention of "the 'intelligent disagreement' that Rand claimed to have been searching for," but not about the "account[ing] for [the] fondness for wild pseudo-psychological speculations." Instead I'd say that the direction is the reverse; the pseudo-psychological speculating permits the premise that to understand Atlas is to agree with its essentials. If you're honest (and you work at it long enough -- she allowed for varying lenths of time with varying people), you'll end up seeing that I am right, was AR's belief. She said so: Her fundamental characteristic was honesty; she had to think that if only people had the courage to see the truth they'd see what she saw. Both Leonard Peikoff and Nathaniel report having arguments with her over this belief.

(I'll look up the quote from "My Thirty Years" later; I'm not sure just where in his memoir(s) NB discusses this, but I'm sure it's there. Maybe someone else has the page references.)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I can recall Francisco's interchange with Galt about pity --- "Pity, John?" --- but that's about it. [....]

It's the reverse: "Pity, Franciso?" In the scene which has always bothered me the most of any scene in the book.

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

I can recall Francisco's interchange with Galt about pity --- "Pity, John?" --- but that's about it. [....]

It's the reverse: "Pity, Franciso?" In the scene which has always bothered me the most of any scene in the book.

Ellen

___

Ellen -

You have to keep on reading further on the same page. I quote, from AS (circa page 710). That's real quoting, not Valliantquoating.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Francisco dropped his eyes, but answered firmly, "No."

"Pity, Francisco?"

"Yes. Forget it. You're right."

Galt turned away with a movement that seemed oddly out of character: it had the unrhythmical abruptness of the involuntary.

He did not turn back; Francisco watched him in astonishment, then asked softly, "What's the matter?"

Galt turned and looked at him for a moment, not answering. She could not identify the emotion that softened the lines of Galt's face: it had the quality of a smile, of gentleness, of pain, and of something greater that seemed to make these concepts superfluous.

"Whatever any of us has paid for this battle," said Galt, "you're the one who's taken the hardest beating, aren't you?"

"Who? I?" Francisco grinned with shocked, incredulous amusement. "Certainly not! What's the matter with you?" He chuckled and added, "Pity, John?"

"No," said Galt firmly.

She saw Francisco watching him with a hint, puzzled frown—because Galt had said it, looking, not at him, but at her.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's the quote from "My Thirty Years" about honesty as her distinctive characteristic. I'll type in a longer passage in a following post, a passage very relevant to discussion of PARC.

"My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir"

The Objectivist Forum

June 1987, pg. 13-14

originally delivered as a speech at

the Ford Hall Forum on April 26, 1987

"You are suffering the fate of a genius trapped in a rotten culture," I would begin. 'My distinctive attribute," she would retort, "is not genius, but intellectual honesty." "That is part of it," I would concede, "but after all I am intellectually honest, too, and it doesn't make me the kind of epochal mind who can write Atlas Shrugged or discover Objectivism." "One can't look at oneself that way," she would answer me. "No one can say: 'Ah me! the genius of the ages.' My perspective as a creator has to be not 'How great I am' but 'How true this idea is and how clear, if only men were honest enough to face the truth.'" So, for understandable reasons, we reached an impasse. She kept hoping to meet an equal; I knew that she never would. For once, I felt, I had the broad historical perspective, the perspective on her, that in the nature of the case she could not have.

___

[Alfonso Jones]

Here's the quote from "My Thirty Years" about honesty as her distinctive characteristic. I'll type in a longer passage in a following post, a passage very relevant to discussion of PARC.

"My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir"

The Objectivist Forum

June 1987, pg. 13-14

originally delivered as a speech at

the Ford Hall Forum on April 26, 1987

"You are suffering the fate of a genius trapped in a rotten culture," I would begin. 'My distinctive attribute," she would retort, "is not genius, but intellectual honesty." "That is part of it," I would concede, "but after all I am intellectually honest, too, and it doesn't make me the kind of epochal mind who can write Atlas Shrugged or discover Objectivism." "One can't look at oneself that way," she would answer me. "No one can say: 'Ah me! the genius of the ages.' My perspective as a creator has to be not 'How great I am' but 'How true this idea is and how clear, if only men were honest enough to face the truth.'" So, for understandable reasons, we reached an impasse. She kept hoping to meet an equal; I knew that she never would. For once, I felt, I had the broad historical perspective, the perspective on her, that in the nature of the case she could not have.

___

Ellen -

I've listened to "30 years" several times. I always cringe at this point. Who knows what exactly was said by Rand. I hope it wasn't precisely what LP reported on in the speech.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Daniel Barnes]

Ellen quoted Leonard Peikoff:

"You are suffering the fate of a genius trapped in a rotten culture," I would begin. 'My distinctive attribute," she would retort, "is not genius, but intellectual honesty." "That is part of it," I would concede, "but after all I am intellectually honest, too, and it doesn't make me the kind of epochal mind who can write Atlas Shrugged or discover Objectivism." "One can't look at oneself that way," she would answer me. "No one can say: 'Ah me! the genius of the ages.' My perspective as a creator has to be not 'How great I am' but 'How true this idea is and how clear, if only men were honest enough to face the truth.'" So, for understandable reasons, we reached an impasse. She kept hoping to meet an equal; I knew that she never would. For once, I felt, I had the broad historical perspective, the perspective on her, that in the nature of the case she could not have.

Jesus H.

Edited July 5, 2008 by Daniel Barnes

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's the longer passage from "My Thirty Years" promised above.

"My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir"

The Objectivist Forum

June 1987, pg. 12-13

originally delivered as a speech at

the Ford Hall Forum on April 26, 1987

Ayn Rand was a woman dominated by values, values that were consistent expressions of a single view of life--which is what you might expect of a great thinker who was at once a moralist and an artist. The corollary is that she had strong dislikes in every department, too. You cannot love something without rejecting just as passionately that which you see as the antithesis of your love. Most people do not know their values clearly or hold them consistently; their desires are correspondingly vague, ambivalent, contradictory. To many such people, Ayn Rand's violent aliveness and assertiveness were shocking, even intimidating. To me, however, they were a tonic. I felt as though other people were drawn in wishy-washy shades of gray, whereas her soul was made of brilliant color.

Unfortunately--and here I turn for a moment to a somber topic--the wishy-washy people often wanted something from Ayn Rand and were drawn to her circle. A few of them wanted simply to advance their careers by cashing in on her fame and following. Others craved the security they found in her approval. Still others had an element of sincerity during their youth, but turned anti-intellectual as they grew older. These people did what they had to do in order to get from Ayn Rand what they wanted.

What they did usually was to give her the appearance of the philosophical intelligence she desperately wanted to meet. They were glib, articulate, sometimes even brilliant people. They absorbed the surface features of Ayn Rand's intellectual style and viewpoint as though by osmosis and then mimicked them. Often, because she was so open, they knew what she wanted them to say and they said it convincingly. Though uninterested in philosophy and even contemptuous of fundamentals, they could put on an expert act to the contrary, most often an act for themselves first of all. Ayn Rand was not the only person to be taken in by it. I knew most of these people well and, to be fair here, I must admit that I was even more deluded about them than she was.

All of these types ended up resenting Ayn Rand, and even hating her. They felt increasingly bored by the realm of ideas, and chafed under the necessity of suppressing their real self in order to keep up the pretense of intellectual passion. Above all, they found Ayn Rand's commitment to morality intolerable. In her mind, as we have seen, moral principles were requirements of man's survival proved by reference to the deepest premises of philosophy, and they were thus the opposite of a luxury or a social convention; they were life-or-death absolutes. When she saw a moral breach, therefore--such as dishonesty or moral compromise or selling one's soul to the Establishment like Peter Keating--she knew what it meant and where it would lead, and she condemned the individual roundly.

To the types of people we are talking about, this was an unbearable reproach. They could accept Objectivism as pure theory for a while, but only as theory. When they were tested by life, they gave in guiltily, one at a time, to the sundry pressures they encountered, and they shrank thereafter from facing her. Usually they ended up artfully concealing the intensity of their resentment, saying that they still admired, even adored, Ayn Rand and her philosophy, but not, as they put it, her "moralizing" or her "anger." Her "moralizing" means the fact that she pronounced moral judgments, i.e., applied her philosophy to real life. Her "anger" in this context means that she took her judgments seriously.

Several of these individuals are now publishing their memoirs in the hopes of getting even with Ayn Rand at last--and also of cashing in on her corpse. At this latter goal, regrettably, some of them seem to be succeeding.

Ayn Rand refused to make collective judgments. Each time she unmasked one of these individuals she struggled to learn from her mistake. But then she would be deceived again by some new variant.

Her basic error was that she took herself as the human standard or norm (as in a sense we all must do, since we have no direct contact with any human consciousness but our own). So if she saw all the outward signs of philosophical enthusiasm and activity, she took it to mean that the individual was, in effect, an intellectual equal of hers, who regarded ideas in the same way she did. After a long while, I came to understand this error. I realized how extraordinary her mind really was, and I tried to explain to her her many disappointments with people.

The passage about honesty as her "distinctive attribute" follows next. And then the part about her anger.

Notice that he refers to her throughout as "Ayn Rand," which I see as having been his midway solution between using "Miss Rand" -- too formal in the context of personal recollections -- and "Ayn," which he might have felt was too familiar in the context of a speech.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen -

I've listened to "30 years" several times. I always cringe at this point. Who knows what exactly was said by Rand. I hope it wasn't precisely what LP reported on in the speech.

Bill P (Alfonso)

I cringe at MANY points. The streaker story I find simply appalling. And see his analysis of the wayward ones in the post I just posted above.

What she's reported by Leonard as saying about honesty as her distinctive attribute is what she's also reported by Nathaniel as saying. They both describe similar arguments with her on the issue. I have to think that what they report is what she did say.

Ellen

PS: I'd forgotten about Francisco echoing -- with a different inflection -- the "Pity" question. Now that you remind me....

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I cringe at MANY points. The streaker story I find simply appalling.

A PS about that. I find it appalling not so much because of the nature of her analysis -- it's just how I'd always thought she did go about psychological analysis (and hence was bad at it). Instead, because of Leonard's reporting this story so admiringly of her insight!

I'll find and link where I posted that whole excerpt before...

Here is the whole segment.

And here is another place where I talk about it.

E-

___

Edited July 5, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Neil Parille]

The most interesting part of this is Peikoff's analysis of those who left Rand (or whom Rand kicked out). When all is said and done, they are just bad people. Rand revealed the truth, and if you liked what she said but found her impossible to be around (because of her "violent aliveness") all the worse for you. Rand was a "moralist" and if you didn't like that, it's because you didn't have a "commitment to morality."

Valliant really hasn't added much to what Peikoff said.

-NEIL

____

[Alfonso Jones]

Ellen -

I've listened to "30 years" several times. I always cringe at this point. Who knows what exactly was said by Rand. I hope it wasn't precisely what LP reported on in the speech.

Bill P (Alfonso)

I cringe at MANY points. The streaker story I find simply appalling. And see his analysis of the wayward ones in the post I just posted above.

What she's reported by Leonard as saying about honesty as her distinctive attribute is what she's also reported by Nathaniel as saying. They both describe similar arguments with her on the issue. I have to think that what they report is what she did say.

Ellen

PS: I'd forgotten about Francisco echoing -- with a different inflection -- the "Pity" question. Now that you remind me....

___

Ellen -

The impression I get from the streaker story is that of someone catechizing. Using everyday occurrences, common life events - to serve as examples (whether they fix exactly or not) to illuminate the theory. I've seen that in religious contexts, quite a bit. I wonder if Rand really thought she KNEW the streaker's motivation, or she was just in mode of teaching Peikoff... (Yes, I know what she is reported as having said. But did she REALLY BELIEVE THAT SHE COULD SEE INTO A STREAKER'S MIND and know the streaker wasn't just a youthful prankster with a strong disrespect for authority?)

Bill P (Alfonso)

[william.scherk]

MSK notes a late-breaking Perigo rant about the Brandroids. Ho hum. Brandroids on the offensive to 'de-hero-ize.' Snore. Cultish equation of heroism with infallibility. Sigh. And here James Valliant, oh glory, on the ramparts, fighting the good fight, fight fight fight, taking on the scum scum scum. Snore. Historical justice is at stake. Cough.

Those who stay silent in such circumstances are cowards and traitors.

Well, today is July 4, 2008 and a lot of posts have been made on several threads, but there has been thundering silence from former Valliant supporters except for a peep or two on Siberia Passion itself from nobody important.

Yes, for a well-read thread, there seems to be little action from Valliant supporters, besides William Puffery Nevin the ninth, eleven year-old Kasper the anti-Kommie (who has yet to read the book), and, well, I can't recall anything else except the more-manly-than-a-man Olivia, who called Brendan the c-word.

So, Emperor Perigo the Paragon rails some more: thousands remain mute. Thousands. Thousands remain mute. Thousands! Yeargggh!

Snore.

What is so funny is that the imperial perigon believes that his readership is in the thousands. Without Prince Valliant hammering the well-hammered anvil, and without the scum from the sewer hammering him in return, SOLO's attractions would be reduced to the wombat Elijah Moonberry, and a few other lesser lights of New Zealand's intellectual underclass.

I think the engaged (if not engaging) OACers and ARIans and former combatants have all fallen into a permanent snooze. There was a time when such folks as Mike Mazza, or Fred Weiss and Diana Mirtshay would hop in to do some work.

Those days are gone. The departed have departed. Linz has red-buttoned some of the so-called cowards, and others have found regular columns and posts to be mostly tiresome screeds by semi-illiterates.

The reason the thousands and thousands of cowards are not rushing up the ramparts to pour oil and rain vengeance on the evil scum?

They aren't reading SOLO any longer.

What Lindsay doesn't realize is that half his readership comes from the sewer dwellers.

Observe that the greatest tenacity on this very board is demonstrated by the very lowest of the scum who leave the supposedly "good" folk here for dead, with few exceptions, in their commitment to what they believe in.

Can anyone parse this garbled mess of sentence? Who is leaving the good folk for dead?

[Ellen Stuttle]

([...] did she REALLY BELIEVE THAT SHE COULD SEE INTO A STREAKER'S MIND and know the streaker wasn't just a youthful prankster with a strong disrespect for authority?)

I think she did, Bill. Look at how confidently she characteristically asserted what was going on in other people's minds -- including huge classes of people ("mystics," "social metaphysicians," "comprachicos," professional intellectuals, a lot of them.....). What she didn't realize was that the philoso-psychological structures of processes she put into others' minds were her inventions, that she peopled people's minds with her constructs.

Ellen

___

[Daniel Barnes]

Observe that the greatest tenacity on this very board is demonstrated by the very lowest of the scum who leave the supposedly "good" folk here for dead, with few exceptions, in their commitment to what they believe in.

Can anyone parse this garbled mess of sentence? Who is leaving the good folk for dead?

I assume this is that the very lowest scum in this case is Robert Campbell, though I suppose it could have equally applied to Brendan H or maybe even me during my various SoloHQ stints.

On the plus side however, our passionate, unbreached commitment to what we believe in would appear to make us morally perfect at the same time, so it's not all bad!...;-)

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Here]

At Least...

... he [WSS] was fairly interpreting your [Linz's] intended meaning [unlike, I assume, those who don't "fairly" interpret his]... ;-)

There we go again, back to the eternally recurrent theme song of the "meaning" of PARC being a magic chimera forever elusively different from what he in fact wrote. Why don't we discuss the "real" substance of PARC?, he asks again and again. Well, if he, the book's author, can't manage to say what that substance is, why should anyone else be able to discern it?

Ellen

___

[Robert Campbell]

Further illustrating the eternally elusive meaning of PARC is this exchange, from Jim Valliant's last visit to Notablog on April 18, 2006.

See http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/nota...1087.html#c1305

and be prepared to search or scroll.

First, Chris Sciabarra (being way too generous to Mr. Valliant):

His participation here has been exemplary. I do not believe that he is some kind of wild-eyed cultic whack-job nut-case "true believer." I think he is seriously concerned about the portrayal of Ayn Rand in the Branden books, and has raised significant questions about the interpretations therein. I don't think PARC was concerned as much with convincing the wider world of Rand's 'perfection'; it was, instead, a prosecutorial "case against the Brandens," much more concerned with attacking the Brandens' accounts than it was in building up sufficiently any alternative narrative.

Next, the ever-gracious Jim Valliant:

How nice! Getting in some new B.S. digs at me when I pose a reasonable question? (And I've got to have an "alternative narrative" — whatever the flaws [of] the Brandens'? So, we're stuck with a moon made of green cheese until the astronauts get back? Sorry, don't buy it.)

You got it—Mr. Valliant bristles if anyone says that PARC is meant to establish (or reestablish) the flawlessness of Ayn Rand.

But if someone suggests that it's just meant to show that TheBrandens are wrong in their portrayal, that's being "stuck with a moon made of green cheese until the astronauts get back."

Can't win with this guy, can you?

Robert Campbell