Your TAS Dollars at Work


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 323
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Roger,

I didn't mean to imply that you meant that what was being meant by the meaning of the comparison was that your meaning was Perigo=Trump. It merely meant that there was none. I was doing it as a tangent.

:)

You lost me, unless everything between "I didn't mean to imply" and "that your meaning was Perigo = Trump" was just silliness. If so, then: tee-hee, Michael, you are such a tease. ;)

But I'm well passed (i.e., over)...

Does this mean you are well passed over?

Arrrrrgh. I meant "well past" being angry, i.e., "over" being angry. Sorry for the homophonasia (or whatever you call it). :unsure:

Anyway, I just had a pow-wow with my wife, and she agrees that I am effectively marooned, being without a Ph.D. or a college gig or an Objectivist organization that wants to give me the time of day -- and that creative alternatives are definitely called for. So, onward into the uncharted wilderness...

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am laughing really hard right now. I want to let the interforum thing go as I concentrate on all the other wonderful areas I have been posting on (Web 2.0, James Bond, Peikoff's criticism of forums, psychological studies on the dark side of human nature, etc.), but James Heaps-Nelson just made a post on SLOP that has me splitting my sides. I want to give it below because it presents his side of the story of an incident between him and Barbara. It is only fair to give his side, but it has the added zest of being highly entertaining.

One of the ironic things about this is that I thought her Objectivist Rage speech was absolutely terrific. In fact, it was one of the highlights of the conference as many can attest. I also said this to Ed Hudgins after the fact and congratulated him on pulling off a terrific conference. One of the reasons you did not see me at the book signing in Orange is that I agree and still agree for the most part with the content of her speech over Linz's. I definitely wouldn't mind having TAS invite her again if the topic is right. If they hadn't brought it up on the Objectivist Living website, I wouldn't mention it here. In fact, the fact that Kat knows this means that Barbara told her.

I gave her what in management terms would be called a "sandwich". It was the wrong time and place for it and I feel bad about that, but here's what happened. Her speech on Objectivist Rage was over and we were the only two people around I said: "That was a wonderful speech, I really enjoyed it, but I have to say I really disliked your book."

Her response was: " No, you don't have to say it. You just don't come up and say something like that to someone."

I was taken aback and the only thing I could think of at the time to say was: "No, I guess I don't"

I spent much of the rest of the conference studiously avoiding her which wasn't terribly difficult to do. She has her own little group there with MSK and Kat, the Grover family and some others.

At the end of the conference, I saw her and she cuts a really attractive figure and I couldn't help but give her a warm smile. I walked up to her and she said "Does this mean that we can still be friends?" I said yes.

I want to make clear to everyone that it's definitely not her that I have a problem with. It's that damn book.

Also, if she is reading this, this definitely does not preclude her having a friendship with my brother who hosted a speech with her as the guest speaker in New Mexico. He doesn't participate in online Objectivism and hasn't read PARC and told me he never will.

JHN loved the Rage speech, thinks Barbara "cuts a really attractive figure," etc., and is saying so right in the face of the dark side.

They are so thirsty to get some kind of sanction and proof that OL is a repository of all that is evil that they are swallowing it without a word. I can only imagine what is going on inside their minds and the stewing on bile that is brewing while they bite their forked tongues.

Jim, if you are reading this, we have our differences but you got me laughing so hard I can't stop. Ram it and ram it deep, dude. They deserve every bit. They literally brought Perigo halfway around the world for the sole purpose of ranting and railing against the vileness and rottenness of Barbara's Rage speech near the time and place she presented it. And you say you disagee with him and prefer her ideas. And he is staying silent so you won't go away. And Valliant is jeerleading with potshots at OL.

Dayaamm!

I don't want to get you in trouble, so I will stop. But you certainly have me thinking in the direction of a retraction. (Just thinking for now, though...) Good Keriiist is this funny!!!

LOLOLOLOL...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am laughing really hard right now. I want to let the interforum thing go as I concentrate on all the other wonderful areas I have been posting on (Web 2.0, James Bond, Peikoff's criticism of forums, psychological studies on the dark side of human nature, etc.), but James Heaps-Nelson just made a post on SLOP that has me splitting my sides. I want to give it below because it presents his side of the story of an incident between him and Barbara. It is only fair to give his side, but it has the added zest of being highly entertaining.
One of the ironic things about this is that I thought her Objectivist Rage speech was absolutely terrific. In fact, it was one of the highlights of the conference as many can attest. I also said this to Ed Hudgins after the fact and congratulated him on pulling off a terrific conference. One of the reasons you did not see me at the book signing in Orange is that I agree and still agree for the most part with the content of her speech over Linz's. I definitely wouldn't mind having TAS invite her again if the topic is right. If they hadn't brought it up on the Objectivist Living website, I wouldn't mention it here. In fact, the fact that Kat knows this means that Barbara told her.

I gave her what in management terms would be called a "sandwich". It was the wrong time and place for it and I feel bad about that, but here's what happened. Her speech on Objectivist Rage was over and we were the only two people around I said: "That was a wonderful speech, I really enjoyed it, but I have to say I really disliked your book."

Her response was: " No, you don't have to say it. You just don't come up and say something like that to someone."

I was taken aback and the only thing I could think of at the time to say was: "No, I guess I don't"

I spent much of the rest of the conference studiously avoiding her which wasn't terribly difficult to do. She has her own little group there with MSK and Kat, the Grover family and some others.

At the end of the conference, I saw her and she cuts a really attractive figure and I couldn't help but give her a warm smile. I walked up to her and she said "Does this mean that we can still be friends?" I said yes.

I want to make clear to everyone that it's definitely not her that I have a problem with. It's that damn book.

Also, if she is reading this, this definitely does not preclude her having a friendship with my brother who hosted a speech with her as the guest speaker in New Mexico. He doesn't participate in online Objectivism and hasn't read PARC and told me he never will.

JHN loved the Rage speech, thinks Barbara "cuts a really attractive figure," etc., and is saying so right in the face of the dark side.

They are so thirsty to get some kind of sanction and proof that OL is a repository of all that is evil that they are swallowing it without a word. I can only imagine what is going on inside their minds and the stewing on bile that is brewing while they bite their forked tongues.

Jim, if you are reading this, we have our differences but you got me laughing so hard I can't stop. Ram it and ram it deep, dude. They deserve every bit. They literally brought Perigo halfway around the world for the sole purpose of ranting and railing against the vileness and rottenness of Barbara's Rage speech near the time and place she presented it. And you say you disagee with him and prefer her ideas. And he is staying silent so you won't go away. And Valliant is jeerleading with potshots at OL.

Dayaamm!

I don't want to get you in trouble, so I will stop. But you certainly have me thinking in the direction of a retraction. (Just thinking for now, though...) Good Keriiist is this funny!!!

LOLOLOLOL...

:)

Michael

Back for one post only. I always tell the truth as I see it. Sometimes I might be mistaken, but I never lie.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

I was wobbling a little, but you just said you never lie. You must be morally perfect or something.

Gotta think about that one.

Michael

No, only morally blameless. There are lots of things I could improve on in the province of morality.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Be careful. That sounds a bit like Valliant's manner of reasoning. ("I am not perfect. Heavens be! I'm just not imperfect.")

:)

Michael

PS - I already know Valliant thinks he's morally perfect. At least he has declared his friend is. I am merely using the imaginary quote to show his rhetorical methodology and stay on topic. If that one confuses you, I can do a million of them right off the top of my head. For instance, here's one: "The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker is not at all a reliable book—in anything. Nada. Zilch. But it is a great source of reliable quotes and stories about Rand's alleged enemies."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Be careful. That sounds a bit like Valliant's manner of reasoning. ("I am not perfect. Heavens be! I'm just not imperfect.")

:)

Michael

PS - I already know Valliant thinks he's morally perfect. At least he has declared his friend is. I am merely using the imaginary quote to show his rhetorical methodology and stay on topic. If that one confuses you, I can do a million of them right off the top of my head. For instance, here's one: "The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker is not at all a reliable book—in anything. Nada. Zilch. But it is a great source of reliable quotes and stories about Rand's alleged enemies."

Michael, you're on the right track but you're not all the way there. Objectivism doesn't have a problem with its theory of moral judgment. It has a problem with its theory of moral sanction. It has made it impossible to make judgments and live with them. I'll let you ponder on that for a while.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never lie.

This is an aside, no reflection on anyone living or dead.

WHAT COMPLETE HOOEY. 'I never lie' indeed! There is no human being on the earth who has never lied, never dissembled or exaggerated or deliberately sidestepped a question. I have lied on numerous occasions and I regard it as an important aspect of integrity. As Twain said: Never waste a lie. You never know when you might need one.

The Taggart brakeman lied to Dagny. Galt lied to Thompson.

Are there any Jews hiding in the attic? - no, sir. Is there anything wrong, dear? - no, I'm fine, honey.

Jeez, grow up.

:rolleyes:

Edited by Wolf DeVoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Your view of Objectivism does not jive with mine.

I think it is perfectly possible to use Objectivist principles to make judgements (and even develop a sound moral sanction policy) and not only live with them, but keep an open mind doing so. I don't base my understanding of the philosophy on the acts of this person or that.

I also try to avoid like the dickens speaking in the name of Objectivism. ("Objectivism does this... Objectivism states... Objectivism has a problem... etc.). That's a personal choice because I find it pompous and distasteful. But that's me.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Michael, you're on the right track but you're not all the way there. Objectivism doesn't have a problem with its theory of moral judgment. It has a problem with its theory of moral sanction. It has made it impossible to make judgments and live with them. I'll let you ponder on that for a while.

Jim

I'm pondering... Eager to see your further thoughts on this. I'm thinking about writing an essay on the inability of Objectivists (and others) to just say "I think you're mistaken" in cases of disagreement, and instead feeling that they have to pick among "you're either crazy, evil, dishonest, or stupid". Can't we disagree without blanket condemnation?

Also, Jim does not strike me as the type of person that lies. The thing I like about his posts is that I can't detect even a trace of guile or manipulativeness or hidden motivations or insinuations. He just says what he thinks in a straightforward manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Michael, you're on the right track but you're not all the way there. Objectivism doesn't have a problem with its theory of moral judgment. It has a problem with its theory of moral sanction. It has made it impossible to make judgments and live with them. I'll let you ponder on that for a while.

Jim

I'm pondering... Eager to see your further thoughts on this. I'm thinking about writing an essay on the inability of Objectivists (and others) to just say "I think you're mistaken" in cases of disagreement, and instead feeling that they have to pick among "you're either crazy, evil, dishonest, or stupid". Can't we disagree without blanket condemnation?

Also, Jim does not strike me as the type of person that lies. The thing I like about his posts is that I can't detect even a trace of guile or manipulativeness or hidden motivations or insinuations. He just says what he thinks in a straightforward manner.

Laure,

If I had this all figured out, what fun would that be :-).

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

I was wobbling a little, but you just said you never lie. You must be morally perfect or something.

Gotta think about that one.

Michael

I, too, never lie. I'm not morally perfect. What this means is that I never say an intentionally false statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fuzzy about how all this stuff about lying works with Objectivism. It sure is a button. Let me break it down a bit into some thoughts I have worked out for myself.

1. Rand (or Nathaniel Branden, I don't remember which) made the correct observation that you don't have to tell the thief where the jewels are just to be honest. It is perfectly moral to lie and tell him that there are no jewels. This is because he is approaching you in a dishonest manner that does not merit respect or the truth.

2. Another guy who came after Rand took this even further and said it was perfectly moral to lie to keep people from snooping.

3. Thus, the Objectivist front line has said it is moral to lie under certain circumstances, yet in general Objectivists have a very thin skin on having their honesty questioned. This is usually the kiss of death when the person is somewhat famous. Of all the people I have known or studied, only Southerners in the deep South have the same level of thin skin to having their honesty questioned. Down there, they would call you out for a duel with pistols like in olden times if they could get away with it. (But strangely enough, some Objectivists of lesser fame enjoy bickering about this and love to level this charge at any and all when they disagree.)

4. Then I observe vanity running rampant among many Objectivists. And what is vanity if not a person lying to himself about his real importance? He knows he isn't all that, yet he tells himself he is.

5. My own opinion is that if a person lies to himself, this is far graver than if he lies to another. If he is a good guy and lies to another, he will feel guilty if it is unfair and will take corrective measures. But if he lies to himself, he short-circuits his objectivity and anything is possible.

6. Then there are studies of cognitive dissonance starting with this one: How and Why We Lie to Ourselves: Cognitive Dissonance. This is in a group of scientific studies on the dark side of human nature I posted here on OL: Why We do Dumb or Irrational Things. If we relax our volitional faculty and go with the automated part only, there is something inside us that pushes us to go with our values over reality. That is why some choices can never be fully automated. We have to make them consciously over and over, otherwise we will let something go to our head or whatever and make a horrible choice.

I don't know how other people feel, but I sometimes have to struggle with myself to maintain objectivity. If I start hating someone, for instance, my natural inclination is to stop seeing the facts for what they are and start imagining shortcomings where none exist. It seems like the shortcomings I have already seen in the Hated One are not enough to satisfy my ire. I want reality to conform to it.

This works on the other end of the scale, also. When I like someone, I am easy to manipulate for a long while. I simply do not accept the shortcomings I see, even when I am consciously aware of them. This has led to some Homeric betrayals in my life. I have seen it coming and shut my eyes. I have since concluded that after a person has had a few negative experiences like that, being gullible is a choice. It is a form of lying to oneself.

I believe I am mostly successful in keeping a lid on all this, though. Life has taught me much. Nowadays I use cognitive identifications before allowing myself normative evaluations as a conscious process and this helps a lot. But I am aware of bias inside myself. I don't choose it. It simply comes of its own accord. On the contrary, when I become aware of it, I choose not to let it cloud my objective judgment (the cognitive part). But I am still aware that I have to fight against an emotional tug toward that bias. And I really do have to. If I relax at a critical moment, I end up doing something I later regret.

In the midst of all this, I ask myself how I should react if someone called me a liar. I know how I do react, and all I can think of is it depends on who calls me that and why. If someone like Perigo or Valliant calls me a liar, this is a badge of honor. The last thing on earth I want from people like that is approval. But if Kat called me a liar when I told her I loved her, it would devastate me. Obviously, if I were conducting an orchestra and someone did that, I would have to fire him, even if it were true, in order to maintain discipline. In other instances, I would try to look behind the words to see if I could ascertain the motives of why the person was doing that.

If the purpose was to humiliate me and I valued the person, then I would get royally pissed and go ballistic. If the purpose was an honest appraisal and I valued the person, I would try to resolve the misunderstanding. With people of little value, I would have to judge at the time. If no real damage was the result, I wouldn't sweat it too much one way or the other. After all, a fool is a fool and it is foolish to argue with fools, much less justify yourself to one. And in the case of honest misunderstanding by a person of goodwill, these things usually work themselves out because of his character.

I believe my approach is extremely healthy and I find the Objectivist thin skin with the chip on the shoulder attitude unhealthy. It is a contextless belligerence and I strongly sense fear at the root, even when there is arrogant posturing. I am undecided as to whether there is something in the philosophy that encourages this, or whether people with this fragility are attracted to Objectivism because it offers some kind of hope of dealing with it. Like I said, I am fuzzy on this.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historical note to point #2: in the NBI Basic Priciples of Objectivism course, Branden took the opposite position, saying that honesty precludes this and that the right way to handle situation is to tell the questioner to mind his own business (just reporting here; don't send your complaints to me). Rand publicly endorsed everything in the NBI lectures. Thus Peikoff has broken with Rand on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Thank you for giving this some thought. My basic position is that the Ayn Rand/Peikoff view of judgment is correct and the Kelley/Truth and Toleration view of sanction/punishment is correct. In my experience TAS-aligned Objectivists are more reticent to judge and ARI Objectivists apply sanction way too harshly. Judgment requires practice and being afraid of punishment means that not enough practice gets done. You are correct that Objectivists do not take charges of dishonesty lightly and that is the context in which we operate.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I observe vanity running rampant among many Objectivists. And what is vanity if not a person lying to himself about his real importance? He knows he isn't all that, yet he tells himself he is. My own opinion is that if a person lies to himself, this is far graver than if he lies to another. et seq

Really good work, Mike. Thank you.

W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim (H-N), if you're willing to answer, here are some questions about three of your posts on SOLO. I'll understand if you don't want to answer some or any of these questions, since I'm asking them here instead of on SOLO. I have no intentions of posting there.

Re your post:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4021#comment-46981

Robert C

Submitted by J. Heaps-Nelson on Sun, 2008-01-13 18:04.

By the way, what's your thought about the behind the back sleaziness that Sciabarra was engaged in? Was it blameless?

Jim

On what basis do you claim to know that Sciabarra did engage in "behind the back sleaziness" as charged? On the basis of the selected excerpts of correspondence posted by those accusing him and clearly out to fry him? How could he have answered except by posting the complete relevant correspondence including theirs to him? Also, do you have any idea how very easy it would be to select from various of your posts over the last couple years or so on this list and SOLO and make you look thoroughly two-faced? In general, selected quotes out of context can be incredibly easy to manipulate so as to give a desired impression.

Re your post:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4021#comment-46980

You opine that:

Linz was merely the messenger.

On what basis do you claim to know that?

And, re your post:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4021#comment-46978

One further lead I do have is that in the incident where Nathaniel Branden advocated anomalous perception and Irfan Khawaja objected and then Irfan received a stream of unsolicited, abusive e-mail, Irfan shared this e-mail with his friend James Lennox. One or both of them may still have the original e-mail logs.

Are you claiming that "Irfan received a stream of unsolicited, abusive e-mail" from Nathaniel? Possibly the answer is in that long thread you linked; but, man, that is a long thread. ;-)

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

I've been away from SOLOP most of today.

And I don't plan to answer every post in that long thread. There is way too much repetition in it already. Not to mention interventions by some thuggish or flipped-out contributors.

So I have prepared some items that I will post over the next day or two.

I've addressed some of Mr. Perigo's assertions about Chris Sciabarra in one of them. You'll see it in a while.

What I can say now is that under no circumstances should you take Lindsay Perigo's word about his beef with Chris Sciabarra.

I do not recommend accepting Mr. Perigo's claims about anyone, unless you can verify them with evidence independently available to you. He is now making at least one charge against Dr. Sciabarra that it didn't occur to him to make two years ago. Would it really surprise you to learn that it is more dramatic than any that he was leveling at the time?

Also, there is no way that Mr. Perigo was just the messenger. Diana Hsieh wrote the denunciatory essay, but it was not merely presented to him as a fait accompli, "I've done all of this--now take it or leave it." He leaves that implication in a recent post. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead, and nothing more.

Rather, there was a collaborative effort among four people: Ms. Hsieh, Mr. Perigo, Mr. Valliant, and Joe Maurone. If you have the stomach for the original threads on SOLOP, go read them and this will become clear to you.

Mr. Maurone, at last report, was periodically defacing Mr. Perigo's entry in Wikipedia.

Robert Campbell

PS. I'm not familiar with Irfan Khawaja's correspondence that you mentioned. What else can you tell us about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim (H-N), if you're willing to answer, here are some questions about three of your posts on SOLO. I'll understand if you don't want to answer some or any of these questions, since I'm asking them here instead of on SOLO. I have no intentions of posting there.

Re your post:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4021#comment-46981

Robert C

Submitted by J. Heaps-Nelson on Sun, 2008-01-13 18:04.

By the way, what's your thought about the behind the back sleaziness that Sciabarra was engaged in? Was it blameless?

Jim

On what basis do you claim to know that Sciabarra did engage in "behind the back sleaziness" as charged? On the basis of the selected excerpts of correspondence posted by those accusing him and clearly out to fry him? How could he have answered except by posting the complete relevant correspondence including theirs to him? Also, do you have any idea how very easy it would be to select from various of your posts over the last couple years or so on this list and SOLO and make you look thoroughly two-faced? In general, selected quotes out of context can be incredibly easy to manipulate so as to give a desired impression.

Re your post:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4021#comment-46980

You opine that:

Linz was merely the messenger.

On what basis do you claim to know that?

And, re your post:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4021#comment-46978

One further lead I do have is that in the incident where Nathaniel Branden advocated anomalous perception and Irfan Khawaja objected and then Irfan received a stream of unsolicited, abusive e-mail, Irfan shared this e-mail with his friend James Lennox. One or both of them may still have the original e-mail logs.

Are you claiming that "Irfan received a stream of unsolicited, abusive e-mail" from Nathaniel? Possibly the answer is in that long thread you linked; but, man, that is a long thread. ;-)

Ellen

___

Ellen,

1. If it was out of context and this had happened to me, I would supply the relevant e-mail or simply say that I couldn't and deny the charge. Then it would be my word against theirs.

2. Linz said so and Diana wrote the article. If Linz really had something like that to say he would have said it himself as he has done countless times on SOLO. Linz had no trouble with Diana and Joe publishing the e-mails why wouldn't he say so if he did it himself as he has countless times before on SOLO.

3. No the author(s)email was unconfirmed, I have corrected both threads. Thanks for asking Ellen. Sloppiness on my part.

I'll have to end this here

Edited by James Heaps-Nelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've finished my brief visit to SOLOPassion.

I prepared a series of posts, without getting caught up in all the blurts and distractions, and put them up in a series tonight.

I finished with one enlarging on MSK's point about bullying. I exhorted Jim Valliant and Swami Perigonanda to show some real intestinal fortitude for a change, and engage their critics in an online forum that the Swami doesn't control.

I don't think they want to do any such thing.

We'll see what happens.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, I think you did a very good job in your series of posts on SOLO. I'm glad someone had the energy to do it. The only fortunate thing I can see about the whole set of circumstances is that Will's announcement of the Summer Seminar line-up happened during academic semester break (assuming Clemson is on break) when you had the time for posting.

There's something I wonder about with Linz's acceding to the idea that (1) the title of his proposed music lecture was a joke (ha, ha); and (2) the string of epithets he's used for Ol were a joke (ha, ha) (though he acceded with another insult, accusing those who took him seriously as being prey to California therapy culture): Would he also, upon being pushed, accede to describing the epithets he's used over the years of his disagreements with Chris Sciabarra as jokes -- although he's now accused Chris of initiating force; is that a joke? -- and his more recent descriptions of Barbara? I.e., how is one to know when Linz "says what he means and means what he says" and when he's "joking," thus allowed to say any outrageous thing he wants while expecting not to be taken seriously?

Ellen

___

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