That "Frightful Mess" Quotation

[Neil Parille]

DF,

I've read the Burns book and am reading the Heller book now. Neither is persuaded by Valliant's arguments. I found one place where Heller finds something Valliant says as potentially insightful (about Frank's psychology) but that's about it.

Branden's lying to Rand for years about his affair is pretty bad. I think Rand implying that he committed fraud was probably worse.

In a couple of reviews of the books ARIans have admitted that the Objectivist world in the 60s was pretty bad, but imply that Rand didn't know of it. This is not something that our two authors believe.

In addition, from how the forthcoming 100 Voices is used in Heller's book, I don't think even the archivists are supporting Valliant.

-Neil

[Jonathan]

Well, now we know why Ellen Stuttle has chosen not to answer me here.

She has applied for full membership in the Perigonian chorus.

"Chorus"? No, you've got to get your terminology straight, Robert. By SOLOP standards, when two or more people publicly express similar negative opinions of the same person, they are a dangerous "lynch-mob" engaged in a "campaign" of "lies." It's not a very effective self-promotional strategy to characterize your opponents as a chorus. Fighting against a mere chorus isn't going to convince anyone of what a heroic martyr you are.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6946#comment-80270

In the case of "Campbla," yes, I "have come to realise that by now." I'm very disappointed by what I see as the obvious dishonesty of Robert Campbell's tactics. Since he's demonstrably capable of meticulous, exact references, his persistent distorting via paraphrasing and substitute targeting I have to believe is deliberate. And his obsession with you, which I agree he displays, amazes me. WHY?? Getting even over Chris Sciabarra? Nothing he's doing is of any use in regard to that. It does look to me as if there's some need to shoot down Rand.

Huh? I'm not following how Robert's "obsession" with Pigero translates to a "need to shoot down Rand." I've always thought that Robert and Ellen have been quite similar in both the content and the degree with which they've praised and criticized Rand.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

I fear your pot and pan are observation and reason.

Cook it in vanity-oil and see what it tastes like.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

DF,

I've read the Burns book and am reading the Heller book now. Neither is persuaded by Valliant's arguments. I found one place where Heller finds something Valliant says as potentially insightful (about Frank's psychology) but that's about it.

Branden's lying to Rand for years about his affair is pretty bad. I think Rand implying that he committed fraud was probably worse.

In a couple of reviews of the books ARIans have admitted that the Objectivist world in the 60s was pretty bad, but imply that Rand didn't know of it. This is not something that our two authors believe.

In addition, from how the forthcoming 100 Voices is used in Heller's book, I don't think even the archivists are supporting Valliant.

-Neil

But since Heller (and Burns too?) cite PARC, Mr. Valliant can at least demand that the Wikipedians consider him a reliable source (or whatever the Wiki-speak term is).

[Robert Campbell]

Jeffrey,

Burns cites PARC I think three times, as a pass-through to Rand's diary entries.

Heller cites PARC a whole lot more. Nearly all of her citations are again pass-throughs to Rand's diary entries. But she does occasionally cite material that Jim Valliant wrote.

Maybe these will be enough to get PARC deemed "reliable."

Jim and Holly Valliant will still be prohibited from putting any references to PARC in any Wikipedia article, on "conflict of interest" grounds. And I expect there will still be resistance to citing PARC among most of the editors who are active in the Rand-related sector. The AnonIP160 and Pelagius1 capers antagonized a lot of people.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I certainly rankled some feathers on SLOP regarding Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made:

I saw the book today; among the many people acknowledged in the book are Michael Stuart Kelly and James Valliant. Sweet irony.

Heh.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Of course, Joe Maurone won't like seeing Chris Sciabarra credited, either.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Do you remember the boat-load of crap Chris received because he acknowledged Leonard Peikoff with thanks in Ayn Rand: Russian Radical?

Anne didn't get access to the archives, but take a look at the number of ARI people she acknowledged with thanks, including Michael Berliner and Jeff Britting.

Maybe times are changing...

I know that Chris deserves a heroes thanks for opening up the academic world to Rand.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

A while back, Michael made this comment about Ellen Stuttle's reasons for "discovering" previously unheralded virtues in Jim Valliant and his book.

Cook it in vanity-oil and see what it tastes like.

Uh huh.

Get a load of this statement, over at SOLOP:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7143#comment-82047

I haven't [done anything that would need redemption], unless all [Nathaniel Branden] means — and I don't think this is all he means — when he speaks of "things [one wishes one had] done differently" is examples on the order of thinking after the event of a perfect reply or of a better way to word something one wrote and wishing that one had thought of the improved version at the time. Or similar "I'd have done it this way instead of that if I'd thought of the alternate way at the time" sorts of retrospective imagined improvements on what one did.

When someone claims that everyone has done things which he or she "would be ashamed of now or a little embarrassed by now," I think, and sometimes say, well, I gather that you have done such things.

Ms. Stuttle has denied believing in the moral perfection of Ayn Rand.

But there's no doubt about this particular case.

Ms. Stuttle definitely believes in the moral perfection of Ellen Stuttle.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ms. Stuttle has denied believing in the moral perfection of Ayn Rand.

Where did I do that? As I recall, I said that all moral perfection means in Objectivism is doing the best one can in one's circumstances. I think she did that. I think she had some lacks of understanding of individual psychology (despite her power at delineating archetypal dynamics), which lacks resulted in griefs -- whether in "tragedies" or not, that I debate.

I figured, btw, that you or MSK would pick up on that post, Robert, and make hay of it.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle has denied believing in the moral perfection of Ayn Rand.

Where did I do that? As I recall, I said that all moral perfection means in Objectivism is doing the best one can in one's circumstances. I think she did that. I think she had some lacks of understanding of individual psychology (despite her power at delineating archetypal dynamics), which lacks resulted in griefs -- whether in "tragedies" or not, that I debate.

I figured, btw, that you or MSK would pick up on that post, Robert, and make hay of it.

Ellen

Ellen,

Is Lindsay Perigo morally perfect, by your construal of the Objectivist criterion?

To take one of MSK's old examples, is Casey Fahy morally perfect, under your interpretation?

Was writing and publishing "To Whom It May Concern" the act of a morally perfect individual, according to that same construal?

Robert Campbell

PS. Since Ayn Rand declared herself the real-life equivalent of John Galt or Howard Roark, wasn't her standard of moral perfection a little more stringent than the one that you have been putting forward?

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I believe in the perfect moral impectfection of me!

--Brant

oops! did I make myself look foolish?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Moral perfection as a state of being?

I use moral perfection as a measure applied to choices and acts, not to the entire lifetime of a person or that person as a whole. You can make a morally perfect decision, and even many, and still keep your independent soul.

But a morally perfect existence?

Well... it can apply to a person as a whole, I guess. There actually is a blissful state of never pushing your own moral limits (or "a state of being 100% faithful to your values in all cases" to use another way of saying it).

Here is a good example from Influence: Science and Practice (4th Edition) by Robert Cialdini. The woman who was a member of the Reverend Jim Jones cult that Cialdini describes was morally perfect. She lived and died by her morality in the most perfect manner possible. She was so perfect that she had attained the point of never giving in to temptation or doubting her own moral values. And she knew what her impact on others would be. Her intent, to my view, was to stand as an example and induce others to be just like her.

The following excerpt is from Chapter 4, Social Proof. The "he" at the start is Reverend Jim Jones and the event is the 1977 mass suicide of his cult in Jonestown, Guyana.

He gathered the entire community around him and issued a call for each person's death to be done in a unified act of self-destruction.

The first response was that of a young woman who calmly approached the now famous vat of strawberry-flavored poison, administered one dose to her baby, one to herself, and then sat down in a field, where she and her child died in convulsions within four minutes. Others followed steadily in turn. Although a handful of Jones-towners escaped and a few others are reported to have resisted, the survivors claim that the great majority of the 910 people who died did so in an orderly, willful fashion.

. . .

There will always be a few such fanatically obedient individuals in any strong leader-dominated group. Whether, in this instance, they had been specially instructed beforehand to serve as examples or whether they were just naturally the most compliant with Jones's wishes is difficult to know. No matter; the psychological effect of the actions of those individuals must have been potent. If the suicides of similar others in news stories can influence total strangers to kill themselves, imagine how enormously more compelling such an act would be when performed without hesitation by one's neighbors in a place like Jonestown.

So much for the desirability of moral perfection as a state of being. Only a certain kind of soul is attracted to that.

We don't get that degree of "moral perfection" in the Objectivist community, but we certainly do get that kind.

I will never know that woman's moral perfection. It's probably due to my irreverence toward the hero-whoreship in some corners of our world... (oops...)

Hell, I can't even spell it right. Look at the mess I made before:

I know that Chris deserves a heroes thanks for opening up the academic world to Rand.

I should have written "hero's thanks."

Woe is me...

It must have been a Galtian slip...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to add a note to that last post.

There is only one way to corroborate the "moral perfection" (in the manner that Perigo and Stuttle and Valliant mean it) of anyone: crawl inside that person's head and observe what he or she thinks.

And that only happens in la-la land. Out here in reality, there are only 4 ways us normal humans can know anything about anyone:

1. Observe what they say.

2. Observe what they do.

3. Observe what others say about them.

4. Observe what others do in relation to them.

When I read people saying about themselves that they have never had a thought like [FILL IN THE BLANK], I am obligated by my own metaphysical restriction to take that with a grain of salt. I can look deeper, but only at what they do, what others say about them and what others do in relation to them. I cannot get in any person's head and verify if such a thought or intention never appears.

But when I observe people acting with clear character flaws and proclaiming that they are "morally perfect," I remind myself never to buy a used car off of them.

In Brazil, they say that when one mule at the water trough brays loudly, the other flops his ear down to shut out the noise.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

I've got a 1996 Ford Interceptor with a badly rusted frame. Yours for only $3500.

It looks great! The only problem is it's not safe to go more than 20 mph, because when the frame breaks around the passenger front wheel that tire gets smashed into the passenger compartment somewhat hurting (if not killing) your passenger. Now, on the highway at 70mph and that sucker breaks you'll suddenly be going sideways taking out the car to your right and EVERYBODY'S GONNA DIE!

Now that I've told you that you can buy the car from me with (my) clear conscience and go out and kill four or five people!

--Brant

Honest Joe! financing available on site!

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ms. Stuttle has denied believing in the moral perfection of Ayn Rand.

Where did I do that? As I recall, I said that all moral perfection means in Objectivism is doing the best one can in one's circumstances. I think she did that. I think she had some lacks of understanding of individual psychology (despite her power at delineating archetypal dynamics), which lacks resulted in griefs -- whether in "tragedies" or not, that I debate.

I figured, btw, that you or MSK would pick up on that post, Robert, and make hay of it.

Ellen

Ellen,

Is Lindsay Perigo morally perfect, by your construal of the Objectivist criterion?

To take one of MSK's old examples, is Casey Fahy morally perfect, under your interpretation?

Don't know.

Was writing and publishing "To Whom It May Concern" the act of a morally perfect individual, according to that same construal?

Could have been, though I think it was horribly foolish and I found it very disappointing.

PS. Since Ayn Rand declared herself the real-life equivalent of John Galt or Howard Roark, wasn't her standard of moral perfection a little more stringent than the one that you have been putting forward?

No. You've quoted her answer about "saints." And she says something similar in Atlas. She didn't equate moral worth with brilliance of achievement.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... EVERYBODY'S GONNA DIE!

Brant,

You got that right. But that's not hero-whoreship (as opposed to being properly in awe of heroes).

To drink the Koolaid or not drink the Koolaid.

That is the question...

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

OK, let's break this "moral perfection" thing down a little further.

(1) Ms. Stuttle, following Messrs. Perigo and Valliant in some of their moods, claims that under Objectivism, moral perfection is doing the best you can under the circumstances.

(2) Ayn Rand once said (Ford Hall Forum, 1971) that every Objectivist (including "first novices" and "buck privates") must be a "saint," but that sainthood is open to each according to his ability.

(3) Ayn Rand put herself forward on a number of occasions as the real-life counterpart of John Galt and Howard Roark. For instance, in her "And I mean it" declaration, and in her outburst at the debate between Nathaniel Branden and Albert Ellis.

Ms. Stuttle's interpretation of moral perfection (1) doesn't seem to fit some of Ayn Rand's statements about the subject—"unbreached rationality" and so on. Nor does it comport well with Rand's tendency to see a wide variety of harmful acts and bad arguments as deliberate. (For instance, if we take Rand at her word, there is no such thing as an unintentional argument from intimidation.)

She also appears unwilling to follow her criterion where it leads.

She is willing to claim moral perfection for herself. But not so eager to claim moral perfection for Lindsay Perigo and Casey Fahy.

Let's approach the question a little differently, then.

What attitude, action, or behavior pattern would constitute evidence that Mr. Perigo is morally imperfect?

For instance, would a morally perfect being have taken part in "Dialectical Dishonesty"?

What attitude, action, or behavior pattern would constitute evidence that Mr. Fahy is morally imperfect?

What attitude, action, or behavior pattern would constitute evidence that Ayn Rand was morally imperfect?

In Ms. Rand's case, more specifically, are there any half-truths in "To Whom It May Concern"? Was Ms. Rand correct in declaring half-truths "a particularly vicious form of lying"? And, if so, can the morally perfect ever engage in a particularly vicious form of lying?

Ms. Stuttle, not for the first time, appears to be conflating (2) and (3). Roarkhood and Galthood are not just a function of the scope of one's achievement. They represent moral "giant" status. For Roark, the pain never goes beyond a certain point. Galt is impervious to pain, fear, or guilt.

Being heroic, by the standards of Rand's fiction, includes successfully practicing Stoicism half-way: damping the negative emotions way down, if not transcending them altogether. Perhaps Ms. Stuttle has now concluded that such reports are the malicious inventions of TheBrandens^TM, but if Ayn Rand really did reproach herself, during her bout of depression in 1958-1960, for feeling depressed when Howard Roark and John Galt wouldn't have, isn't this an indication that Ms. Rand was applying standard (3) to herself?

When Rand-worshipers attribute moral perfection to her—when, say, they invoke her authorship of Atlas Shrugged as a discussion-stopper—are they merely saying she did the best she could under the circumstances? Are they really applying criterion (1)?

When she attributed moral perfection to herself, as she appears to have done from time to time, was she merely saying that she was doing the best she could under the circumstances? Or did she have something more Olympian in mind?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Needless to say, Ms. Stuttle is not interested in answering hard questions about moral perfection.

If she says Lindsay Perigo is morally imperfect, he'll never let her forget it.

If she says Lindsay Perigo is morally perfect, the rest of the world will never let her forget it.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Robert,

Something you're overlooking in your latest get-Ellen-for-not-towing-your-line campaign is that I didn't make any claim of "moral perfection." Objectivists tend to get all wound up over issues of "moral perfection." I remind you that I'm not an Objectivist. I don't actually think in terms of "moral perfection." You might refresh your memory as to what the post you're having fun with said.

Merry Christmas (in a couple weeks), Robert.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

There's surely no obligation to think in terms of moral perfection.

For instance, I don't think that moral perfection is a good idea.

Of course, my reasons for rejecting the notion might be very different from Ms. Stuttle's. It's hard to know, because she hasn't explained her position and appears disinclined to.

However, there is a notion of moral perfection (possibly, as I've tried to explicate, more than one such notion) in the Objectivist corpus.

What's more, persons whom Ms. Stuttle now takes it upon herself to defend, such as Messrs. Valliant and Perigo, consider themselves Objectivists and subscribe to what they take to be Ayn Rand's doctrine of moral perfection.

So I will ask, one more time:

Is Lindsay Perigo morally perfect, by Ayn Rand's notion of moral perfection?

Is Casey Fahy morally perfect, by Ayn Rand's notion of moral perfection?

Was Ayn Rand morally perfect, by Ayn Rand's notion of moral perfection?

Robert Campbell

PS. If I were as authoritarian as Ms. Stuttle now imagines me to be, I would be trying to make her toe the Campbellian line, not tow it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Tow?

Is the Campbellian Line a tugboat in the Harbor of Hero Diminution?

Anyway, everybody knows the song goes, "Because you're Ayn, ITOE the line," not "Because you're Ayn, ITOW the line."

(I couldn't resist the groaners.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

So strange. If I remember right, the plug has just been pulled on Kirkus.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Well! I'm morally perfect! So there! I just don't know what relative to.

--Brant

hopes this spikes this!

[tjohnson]

Well! I'm morally perfect! So there! I just don't know what relative to.

--Brant

hopes this spikes this!

I'm just plain perfect.