Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

And of course, one of the big obnoxious impediments Valliant himself provides to any objective discussion of the Branden books has the following pattern...

Suppose someone says that, yes, a particular statement or detail of wording of Barbara's is an overgeneralization, he then promptly starts harping on the person's having conceded -- amongst his favorite words -- the point. When in fact the someone had probably noticed the glitch in question as far back as first reading Barbara's book when the book was published. As if the someone needed Valliant's help in order to see that detail!

I don't think there's even one thing he's mentioned which I'd find a legitimate critique which I haven't been aware of myself from first reading of the respective Branden books.

Ellen

EDIT: PS: The only thing useful his book provides is the AR journal entries. But even those he's buried under such a mass of slanted "exegesis" as to make trying to conduct an objective discussion of those like trying to carry on a conversation in a gale-force wind.

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK, folks, now here's a little project. Valliant claims the following:

James Valliant:"...PARC never argues for, or claims, or even implies Rand's "perfection." PARC explicitly says that Rand was a human being who made mistakes and possessed a human psychology with all that this implies."

Now Valliant trots this line out all the time, but can anyone find any direct reference to Rand actually making a "mistake" in PARC? To making a blunder or simple human error that Valliant does not try provide some justification for? I cannot recall one. Likewise, other than one passing reference to her occasional anger, can anyone find an actual reference to Rand having a normal human psychology, "with all that this implies"? Quite the opposite: there are plenty of instances where Valliant claims she has a superhuman psychology, such as an immunity to female jealousy, or having a mind that is "the equivalent of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging device in psychological diagnosis" etc.

How many sections of PARC, no matter how small or incidental, can we find where Valliant does not flatter Rand, or is critical of some aspect of her? Are there any at all?

James Valliant "And, obviously, Rand's "perfection" follows from nothing that PARC actually does say."

If in fact PARC does not contain any examples of Rand making mistakes or having a normal human psychology, then the above is false.

Edited by Daniel Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Valliant "And, obviously, Rand's "perfection" follows from nothing that PARC actually does say."

If in fact PARC does not contain any examples of Rand making mistakes or having a normal human psychology, then the above is false.

He indicates -- though I don't think he quite says it in exact words -- that she made a mistake in ever being attracted to Nathaniel. ;-)

(Btw, see my Edit addition to my post 2 above.)

E-

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

On page 30, Valliant says:

She was at times depressed, angry and harsh. Presumably, she was, at times, tense, irritable and demanding--as, I fear, most of us are.

Of course, with respect to her anger, Valliant manages to turn it into a virtue. I don't think he discusses Rand's depression, etc. in his book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

On page 30, Valliant says:

She was at times depressed, angry and harsh. Presumably, she was, at times, tense, irritable and demanding--as, I fear, most of us are.

Of course, with respect to her anger, Valliant manages to turn it into a virtue. I don't think he discusses Rand's depression, etc. in his book.

He acknowledges someplace, in connection with a reference in her journal entries, that she did go through a depression post-Atlas.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He indicates -- though I don't think he quite says it in exact words -- that she made a mistake in ever being attracted to Nathaniel. ;-)

I'd like to see the quote. After all, the whole weirdo premise underlying PARC is that a super-ultra-uber-genius like Rand could only be fooled - even temporarily - by two super-ultra-uber-evil-geniuses!..;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

On page 30, Valliant says:

She was at times depressed, angry and harsh. Presumably, she was, at times, tense, irritable and demanding--as, I fear, most of us are.

Of course, with respect to her anger, Valliant manages to turn it into a virtue. I don't think he discusses Rand's depression, etc. in his book.

Good, ok so we've got one rather vague quote. Any others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second "weirdo premise" in this book is that Rand's willingness to stay with Branden for months after diagnosing him as a "social metaphysician," "evil" and other things is a sign of Rand's "benevolence." Why does toleration for someone's supposed evil become a virtue when practiced by Ayn Rand, but horrible compromise when practiced by us lesser mortals?

The third weirdo premise is that Rand didn't know that Branden was creating a cult behind her back. What happened to her MRI mind?

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] Rand's willingness to stay with Branden for months after diagnosing him as a "social metaphysician," [...].

Less than 2 months. The diagnosis was in her July 4 paper; the break was...from memory, August 22 or 23? (I'll have to check now.) [*] 'Course if the truth hadn't been what it was and hadn't meanwhile come out, the working relationship at least might have gone on longer. But then if the truth hadn't been what it was, the whole song and dance Branden used would have been different. Too many contrafactuals to give a prognostication.

Ellen

[*] It was August 23. Recently, someplace in the announcements in The Objectivist of "Upcoming Events," I came across an announcement that NB was giving readings of a series of AR's plays, one of which was scheduled on the evening before the final break between him and AR -- of course, it wasn't put that way in the announcement. ;-) I wonder if that reading took place, or if things had become so tense by then it was cancelled.

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one thing I suppose I could say about Chris Sciabarra.

The new standard on Siberia Passion is to equate deception with initiation of force. (That would make them outright thugs, but that is beside the point. Since when did consistency ever bother those folks when their own behavior was at issue?)

If the attention they gave to thier grievances against Chris is any measure, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn about how they judge Chris.

Chris has the soul of a rapist.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

Good point. For some reason, I thought there were earlier statements in her journals. I'll check.

With respect to depression, my point is that I don't recall if Valliant gives an analysis of why Rand was depressed, for example if it was unhappiness with her personal life or the state of culture.

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the following recent quote by Cathcart. interesting:

What PARC does, in part, is remove any doubts as to whether Objectivist organizations ought to be associating with Nathaniel Branden, inviting him to speak, etc. Some people get that, and others don't.

I suppose a case could be made for that in theory, although I certainly don't see how it could hold water rationally simply from an historical angle. But in practice, the reality has been different on both sides of the ARI-TAS divide.

The PARC issue actually, in part, "removed any doubts as to whether Objectivist organizations ought to be associating with Lindsay Perigo, inviting him to speak, etc." He has been rejected by both.

This is almost the case with Valliant, but at least one minor ARI-sanctioned Objectivist club I know of did invite him to speak about his book. I don't recall him being invited to speak at ARI functions, though.

And of course, "some people get that, and others don't."

:)

(Are you guys sure this dude isn't fresh out of high school?)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a search and depression as applied to Rand in the book occur on pages 30 (already discussed), 139, 160 & 161.

On page 139, Valliant reports NB's claim that Rand was depressed post-AS.

On page 160-61, there is discussion of Rand being depressed "at the state of the world."

There's nothing wrong with being depressed, but from what I can tell, Valliant doesn't seem to consider that Rand's depression was related to poor decisions she made. (Of course, I don't know the details.)

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel quotes James Valliant re the latter's stating that Rand "possessed a human psychology":

OK, folks, now here's a little project. Valliant claims the following:

James Valliant:"...PARC never argues for, or claims, or even implies Rand's "perfection." PARC explicitly says that Rand was a human being who made mistakes and possessed a human psychology with all that this implies."

Now Valliant trots this line out all the time, but can anyone find any direct reference to Rand actually making a "mistake" in PARC? [....]

Neil quotes one of the places where Valliant speaks of Rand's human psychology:

On page 30, Valliant says:
She was at times depressed, angry and harsh. Presumably, she was, at times, tense, irritable and demanding--as, I fear, most of us are.

Of course, with respect to her anger, Valliant manages to turn it into a virtue. I don't think he discusses Rand's depression, etc. in his book.

The full quote from page 30 is this:

Rand was certainly in one sense very alienated from the world around her. She was at times depressed, angry and harsh. Presumably, she was, at times, tense, irritable and demanding--as, I fear, most of us are.

Rand's fierce anger, however, was an unusually intense and major part of her personality--of this, there can be no doubt.

One does not have to be a psychologist to know that inappropriate or misplaced anger often does indicate repressed feelings of pain and injustice. This, of course, assumes that the anger is misplaced or inappropriate. Otherwise, anger is simply a healthy response to injustice.

The other place I recall his making a similar statement is at the start of the last chapter of Part I:

[He starts with a warning against ad hominem, saying that "A philosopher's biography is, of course, irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that thinker's ideas."]

It is clear, however, that Ayn Rand was a human being who made mistakes. She possessed a human psychology with all of the complexities which that implies. Certainly, in the course of her life, Rand suffered terrible pain. She could be angry and severe, no doubt. This much can be independently verified.

In neither place does he elaborate on these statements with examples. Instead, he returns to the charges against the Brandens.

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a search and depression as applied to Rand in the book occur on pages 30 (already discussed), 139, 160 & 161.

None of those -- unless I missed the reference on a quick skim -- is where he acknowledges evidence in AR's diaries of a post-Atlas depression.

Try a search on "crisis," if you have time.

(Btw, I'm not at all critical of Rand's post-Atlas crisis; I find it quite understandable, given the reception to the extraordinary book she'd spent 12 years writing. Plus, there often is a post-partum writer's depression. Plus -- although both Nathaniel and Barbara have said that they don't know for sure when AR went through menopause -- she was at that age, and I wonder if hormonal factors were involved as well. The only thing I'm critical of in regard to the post-Atlas slump is the unrealistic view, based on ideas of a proper Randian hero/ine, that there was anything amiss about experiencing such a crisis.)

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In neither place does he elaborate on these statements with examples. Instead, he returns to the charges against the Brandens.

Ellen,

In both cases, this was the first part of a technique that I call argument by repetition. The second part is the actual repetition. You state something reasonable at first to cover your ass, then repeat your real point (usually the opposite) ad nauseum from there on out. If anyone calls you hamhanded or biased, you simply point to the initial statement as proof that you are objective.

That is at least one of the reasons Valliant did not elaborate on them. They had fulfilled their rhetorical function. They established initial smokescreens for different facets of his Branden bashing and Rand whitewashing subtext.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Mr. Valliant has made a one-paragraph hypocritical concession on many a contentious issue.

When challenged, he obligingly quotes his hypocritical concession even though the entire remainder of his book contradicts it.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other place I recall his making a similar statement is at the start of the last chapter of Part I:
[He starts with a warning against ad hominem, saying that "A philosopher's biography is, of course, irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that thinker's ideas."]

It is clear, however, that Ayn Rand was a human being who made mistakes. She possessed a human psychology with all of the complexities which that implies. Certainly, in the course of her life, Rand suffered terrible pain. She could be angry and severe, no doubt. This much can be independently verified.

In neither place does he elaborate on these statements with examples. Instead, he returns to the charges against the Brandens.

___

Ellen -

I wonder how he would explain the effort (such as it was) behing PARC if he really believed that "A philosopher's biography is, of course, irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that thinker's ideas."

Just, IN HIS VIEW, defending a lady who had been improperly attacked?

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another argument that Valliant uses is that unless "the Brandens" can produce a transcript of Rand's (or Frank's) thought their judgments about what they were thinking aren't to be trusted. Of course, motivation and the like are often inferred by conduct, body language and what not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In neither place does he elaborate on these statements with examples. Instead, he returns to the charges against the Brandens.

I wrote: Can anyone find any direct reference to Rand actually making a "mistake" in PARC? To making a blunder or simple human error that Valliant does not try provide some justification for?

So far the count for this is zero, it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen -

I wonder how he would explain the effort (such as it was) behing PARC if he really believed that "A philosopher's biography is, of course, irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that thinker's ideas."

Just, IN HIS VIEW, defending a lady who had been improperly attacked?

Bill P (Alfonso)

No, not just that in his view. He talks of Rand criticism by the wider intellectual world having been skewed and diverted by ad hominems pertaining to her sex life being substituted for serious consideration of her ideas. He sees PARC as an attempt to redress this problem.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, regarding talk on SOLO that Valliant's book PARC doesn't qualify as hagiographic, and pertinent to questions Daniel asked regarding any details given in PARC of Rand's making mistakes, here is an extensive passage from the "Introduction" to PARC.

Notice especially Valliant's iteration of Leonard Peikoff's description of Rand as "indeed, the person she had to be in order to have written Atlas Shrugged." Now that, in a sentence, states the primary myth about Ayn Rand, the myth she promulgated (and I think genuinely believed about herself): that she herself was a representative of the heroic characters of her novel.

I don't consider the heroic characters of her novel human exemplars, but a lot of Objectivists do thus consider them. I don't think that any humans in fact could be exactly the sort of persons she projects as heroic ideals. But a lot of Objectivists take those fictional figures as realizable ideal figures, and I think it's important to a lot of Objectivists to believe that Ayn Rand was such a figure. Some Objectivists have even said outright that it would cast doubt on the philosophy in their eyes if Ayn Rand wasn't such a figure.

Vallaint, today, keeps disclaiming any belief that Ayn Rand was "perfect." Linz says that all he, Linz, means in evaluating her as "perfect" is that she attempted to live by her own standards and never consciously breached them. A great deal of semantic debate can occur -- and has occurred on earlier threads on SOLOHQ, and RoR, and SOLO, and I think on this list also -- over the operative meaning of "perfect."

The following passage I think makes clear Valliant's actual "message" on the subject of Ayn Rand's moral status: the message that she indeed was such a figure as those she projected as ideals.

One further point concerning my own view: I agree with the letter of the statement that Rand was "the person she had to be in order to have written Atlas Shrugged," but I have a different opinion from Leonard Peikoff's as to the requirements involved. I think that what she had to be was a person who saw life, and saw herself, mythologically -- with a resultant power of grand vision, but with blindnesses to aspects of the reality of actual humans, including herself.

The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

"Introduction"

pp. 4-8

References omitted

Leonard Peikoff, the foremost authority on Rand's thought, and many others who were closely associated with Rand, have declared the Brandens' biographies to be nothing more than arbitrary assertions, and on that basis they have dismissed these books without further consideration. Peikoff defines an arbitrary claim as one for which there is no evidence, that is, "a brazen assertion, based neither on direct observation nor an attempted logical inference therefrom." Because of Peikoff's wholesale dismissal of these books--and a general disgust for the Brandens among Rand's defenders--no comprehensive critical response to these books has yet appeared in print.

However, only an analysis of the biographies themselves makes possible the conclusion that they are largely arbitrary and often demonstrably false. For those of us who never met Rand, to dismiss entirely and without consideration those critics of Rand who knew her would be a mistake--no matter how much credibility Rand has earned from her readers.

Moreover, even if there is no truth to be gleaned from these works and they are wholly arbitrary, the necessary dirty work of exposing them remains, since they are published as historical records by primary sources, and future generations will not have the benefit of Rand's contemporaries to dispute their specific allegations.

For myself, such an analysis was necessary, and I would not be stopped even by the sincere and prescient advice of Leonard Peikoff.

During my own 1995 interview of Peikoff for the television show Ideas in Action, he admitted that, while Rand was, indeed, the person she had to be in order to have written Atlas Shrugged, it is impossible "to project" all that Rand was "from just reading her work."

Yet her work had made me want to know more of what she was, to glimpse more of the genius who had achieved such greatness in the very act of defending human greatness. I was curious to know more about Rand, for the sheer inspiration and fascination and delight of it, and my projection of what kind of soul she must have had gave me confidence that even her critics could not help but provide valuable observations of what must have been a remarkable and unique human being.

I had no illusions that Rand would be without fault or flaw. We will see that Rand herself admitted to being mistaken about something (or someone) on more than one occasion, and even her staunchest defenders have admitted that Rand's anger could sometimes be unjust.

My mind was certainly open to what Rand's critics had to say.

[....]

[W]hen I first opened the pages of the Brandens' books, I was fully prepared to learn about the negative side of Rand's ledger, and I presumed that the Brandens, so close to Rand for many years, would be the ones to reveal it.

What I found upon careful examination and comparison of both of these authors' works, however, was that they had erected monuments of dishonesty on a scale so profound as to literally render them valueless as historical documents--and that Rand's critics have been building on a foundation of historical sand in their widespread reliance on these works.

Despite the claims these biographers make that their memoirs are drawn from personal experience, it will be seen that their intense personal animosity towards Rand--which emanates from that experience--has scarred all aspects of their work.

We shall see that rhetorical maneuvering, insinuation, failure to name sources, uncorroborated, self-serving assertion, and extensive internal contradiction, render even the positive things the Brandens have to say about Rand--which might be regarded as credible considering the authors' obvious hostility toward her--of little value as well. Any praise they offer seems, in the end, a mere acknowledgement of the observations of far more honest sources.

[....]

[upon examination of Rand's private journals], I found that this material only strengthened the original analysis [posted on the web], exposing still more flaws in the Brandens' accounts of the very kind already identified, and confirming several of the original theses. In particular, this material demonstrated the degree to which the Brandens have suppressed information vital to a fair assessment of their own behavior and Rand's, and, far from revealing personal hypocrisy on Rand's part, are testimony to Rand's integrity and consistency.

Even more, these journals provide the fascinating account of how an extraordinary mind systematically unmasked the systematic deceit of a rather extraordinary deceiver, and they provide a tragic chronicle of how a romantic soul was cruelly manipulated by a man to whom she had given her highest trust and affection.

[....]

In the process of attempting to understand Mr. Branden's various psycho-pathologies, Rand has also left us many invaluable insights into human psychology that will no doubt be of more lasting value than the exposure of the Brandens' deceptions.

[....]

The acuity of Rand's mind--and the intensity of her anger--on the topic of Nathaniel Branden is bracingly apparent in these journal entries; frequently, and despite the pain this topic involved for Rand, they sparkle with a crystal clarity and radiate a ruthless honesty so familiar to Rand's readers.

[....]

In the course of what follows, we will also find something else: the profound truth about Ayn Rand and the meaning of her life, the very truth in danger of being lost to the character of a legend invented by the Brandens.

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Both Allan B. and Alan G., of course, later revoked the irrevocable in Barbara's case -- and I think Alan G. had subsequent contact with Nathaniel as well.)

Ellen, I hadn't heard about Alan Gotthelf having contact with either BB or NB. ("G" is "Gotthelf", isn't it?) So what happened? -- Mike Hardy

No, dear. "G" is Greenspan, one of the signatories to "For the Record," the text of which is quoted and the signatories to which are listed in the post to which you replied. And Gotthelf's first name I believe is spelled "Allan," not "Alan."

Duh.

LNS

___

OK, look: I'm pleading not guilty to all of these scurrilous accusations on the grounds of temporary stupidity. -- Mike Hardy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert is doing it again. See here.

There are some things from that post I want to leave on record on this thread. Valliant's animosity towards Robert Hessen is well known, so there is no reason for a reader to wade through his convoluted paragraphs proving that life is short and his verbiage is long simply to communicate that. Anyone interested can go to the link.

But Robert cut to the chase right in the middle of it and capped it off very nicely. Robert is addressing Valliant while quoting large chunks of rhetoric by the same.

... being mistreated by Nathaniel Branden would make Robert Hessen unfairly disposed toward Ayn Rand... how, exactly?

. . .

And you have documented Dr. Hessen's bitterness and biases, how?

. . .

In March 2006, you announced, during a rare visit to Rebirth of Reason, that you had just sent a copy of your book to Dr. Hessen.

See

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0793.shtml#18

Did you ask Dr. Hessen to endorse your book?

Did he, in fact, endorse it?

Did you and he undertake any specific discussions of your book?

And what is your view of people in Rand-land who are given an opportunity to endorse your book and refuse to do it?

Obviously Valliant has no answers to Robert's questions and never will. He's lazy and shoddy as a scholar and dishonest as an historian. Online he's even worse.

Ellen added another rhetorical device that I had not cataloged, but this pertains only to his method of argument online, not to his book.

Suppose someone says that, yes, a particular statement or detail of wording of Barbara's is an overgeneralization, he then promptly starts harping on the person's having conceded -- amongst his favorite words -- the point. When in fact the someone had probably noticed the glitch in question as far back as first reading Barbara's book when the book was published. As if the someone needed Valliant's help in order to see that detail!

Valliant takes credit for convincing someone who already had an opinion. I have seen him do this often, I just never paid attention to it.

Thanks, Ellen. One more for the list. Every time I think I have a full picture, this dude has another rhetorical device I missed.

What a specimen for study! Dayaamm!

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice especially Valliant's iteration of Leonard Peikoff's description of Rand as "indeed, the person she had to be in order to have written Atlas Shrugged." Now that, in a sentence, states the primary myth about Ayn Rand, the myth she promulgated (and I think genuinely believed about herself): that she herself was a representative of the heroic characters of her novel.

Noticed! Now, this myth is necessary because Rand's complete personal integration with her philosophy is logically critical to the ortho-Objectivist movement. Why? Because her philosophy claims to be one "for living on earth"; she renounces unattainable abstract standards as fundamentally evil.

However, if not even the "discoverer" of Objectivism herself could not live up to the standards of rationality she proclaimed...

Valliant, today, keeps disclaiming any belief that Ayn Rand was "perfect." Linz says that all he, Linz, means in evaluating her as "perfect" is that she attempted to live by her own standards and never consciously breached them.

One of my favourite dimwit arguments. By these lights we might also say that, say, Aleister Crowley was morally perfect, or Son of Sam - or closer to home, William Hickman - in that they attempted to live by their own standards without breach; and even that they were only immoral when they were kind or merciful to someone!

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