Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Dragonfly]

Valliant also writes: "You also would have to show that Rand canceled subscriptions for reasons of minor intellectual differences, non-philosophical and non-moral, or for petty reasons."

So she would of course cancel subscriptions if you just had minor philosophical differences? In other words, if you didn't agree 100% with her philosophical ideas? Well, if that isn't a culture of conformity...

[Daniel Barnes]

If Diana can be considered a "weathervane," the lack of attention to PARC on Noodlefood does seem indicative of not much interest amongst ARI loyalists.

Two and a half years ago the weathervane was sure pointing Valliant's way.

Hsieh: "In my view, Jim Valliant's case against Nathaniel and Barbara Branden in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is so overwhelming that no honest person can read it without dramatically changing their judgment of the Brandens for the worse -- and of Ayn Rand for the better. Moreover, a person who accepts any part of the Brandens' portrayal of Ayn Rand, yet refuses to read the book is either dishonest, irresponsible, or a coward. There's just no excuse for self-inflicted blindness -- particularly not from people with any measure of trust in or contact with the Brandens."

There's a flurry of posts such as that one. Elsewhere she describes herself as an "enthusiastic supporter" of the book.

Of course, she was once an enthusiastic supporter of David Kelley, so I'm not sure what that means now. But as recently as a year ago, Diana plugged ARI Randroid Ed Cline giving PARC a rave. True to form, Cline has an outstandingly nutty quote on the subject:

"I have written fifteen novels, every one of them with a villain, but all my fictional villains are amateurs compared to the Brandens. I could never have conceived of such evil for any of my villains, of the kind of monstrous deception to which the Brandens subjected Rand even while they knew she was attempting to comprehend their behavior and problems, and even trying to salvage their lives and careers. They are beyond redemption."

Gee, tell us what you really think, Ed. Given all that it is interesting that Valliant chooses to run his ongoing campaign out of Solopassion, and that Noodlefood appears to have gone quiet on the subject. Perhaps it's just getting old.

Interestingly, I also came across the following from Don at Noodlefood:

"Objectivism is not first and foremost an academic philosophy. It is, as Rand said, a philosophy for living on earth. Rand did not define a philosophy because she wanted to be a philosopher. She defined a philosophy because she cared desperately for human greatness, and wanted to portray her vision of the ideal man. The impetus for Objectivism, in other words, was hero-worship." (emphasis in original)

This is pretty much the ARCHN thesis (which I know you disagree with, but thought I'd note anyway).

Edited June 22, 2008 by Daniel Barnes

[Ellen Stuttle]

Interestingly, I also came across the following from Don at Noodlefood:

"Objectivism is not first and foremost an academic philosophy. It is, as Rand said, a philosophy for living on earth. Rand did not define a philosophy because she wanted to be a philosopher. She defined a philosophy because she cared desperately for human greatness, and wanted to portray her vision of the ideal man. The impetus for Objectivism, in other words, was hero-worship." (emphasis in original)

This is pretty much the ARCHN thesis (which I know you disagree with, but thought I'd note anyway).

I don't disagree with that statement as worded. Her desire to portray her vision of the ideal man was her impetus for doing philosophy. But ARCHN's thesis is quite a bit more than that: it's that what she produced was a rationalization. Also, of course, I really don't approve of misquoting and taking out of context any quote, and doubly so when a misquoted and out-of-context quote is taken as an important basis of one's case, the way Greg used the quote from the question and answer in the "Palyboy" interview. He simply left out the context, which was clearly one of talking about literature, and left out the first three words of the question, which were "As a novelist."

The full question is:

Playboy, March, 1964

Playboy: As a novelist, do you regard philosophy as the primary purpose of your writing?

Rand: No. My primary purpose is the projection of an ideal man, of man "as he might be and ought to be." Philosophy is the necessary means to that end.

This can not legitimately be taken to mean that when she wrote her non-fiction works, her purpose was to project an ideal man and not to address the philosophic issue she was writing about.

I don't know if Greg was aware that he'd used a truncated version of the question and had misrepresented the clearly literary context, but I think that if he didn't check the original text, he should have done so before significantly basing his case on that quote. And I think even less well of his elision -- I'd consider it actually dishonest -- if he knew he was making it.

Ellen

___

[Neil Parille]

In light of Valliant's failure to do basic research for his "case" against the Brandens, the following comments by Mr. Cline are almost funny:

. . . the scope of research and depth of intellectual effort that Valliant must have expended are nothing less than marvelous . . .

I must commend Valliant on a feat of detective work that would have daunted any career detective novelist.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that Mr. Cline attacks yours truly in the piece.

-NEIL

____

[Ellen Stuttle]

Valliant also writes: "You also would have to show that Rand canceled subscriptions for reasons of minor intellectual differences, non-philosophical and non-moral, or for petty reasons."

So she would of course cancel subscriptions if you just had minor philosophical differences? In other words, if you didn't agree 100% with her philosophical ideas? Well, if that isn't a culture of conformity...

No, I don't think she'd cancel a subscription for minor philosophical differences. A difficulty there is how minor is "minor"? I think Roy Childs' subscription was cancelled -- I'm not certain of that. But I'm certain she wouldn't have considered the difference "minor." I think Tibor Machan's was -- again, I'm not certain. Tibor was -- by his own description -- impolite in expressing his differences.

People who wrote disagreeing in what was taken to be an offensive way risked cancellation even before the Split. NB screened letters and cancelled subscriptions himself back then.

Ellen

___

[Chris Grieb]

I have been told that Jarrett Wollstein's subscription was also canceled but this may have been done by Nathaniel Branden.

The subscribers to the Objectivist took a big drop after the Break. I however doubt that most of these were canceled subscriptions.

[Daniel Barnes]

I don't disagree with that statement as worded. Her desire to portray her vision of the ideal man was her impetus for doing philosophy. But ARCHN's thesis is quite a bit more than that: it's that what she produced was a rationalization.

Surely the impetus for philosophy is, as Greg says, the search for truth, not the desire to portray any particular personal vision. That's what novels are for. Do you think if she'd later found the truth clashed with this initial "impetus", that men were not really like those in her books, she'd have altered her philosophy accordingly? Doesn't seem that way. In fact, this blurring of her personal vision and reality, and even the barefaced substitution of one for another, is a rather distinctive part of Rand's approach - for example her calling the most idealised character in The Fountainhead, Howard Roark, the only real human in the book. This is of course a prime example of a rationalisation of her basic motives.

Incidentally, I've been meaning to ask Greg about your point about the quote, and have just emailed him. I'll post his response.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In the only time I ever saw Rand live—at the Ford Hall Forum in the early 70's—Rand was asked point blank about canceling subscriptions. I don't remember her exact words, but I do remember the gist of her answer because it stayed with me as something that impressed me at the time.

She said her criteria for canceling subscriptions was based on good manners.

That sounded really, really off-key to the rude "take-no-crap" attitude her heroes often display as a virtue—which is an attitude aped by the more obnoxious Objectivists, including by me at the time.

But then she said something that planted the seed of doubt in my mind. To illustrate what she meant, she said that if someone started a letter to her by saying, "Well, you are wrong you know," or something like that, she would have the subscription canceled. Then she concluded by restating that a condition for doing business with her was displaying good manners.

Even at that stage of my thinking (which was the blinded hero-worship stage), I could not understand how telling someone that they were wrong could be construed as bad manners. (Maybe if it were stated in an obnoxious manner as a put-down and not as a discussion of ideas...) I had to keep pushing that thought away for years, which is understandable. I couldn't imagine how Rand could be wrong at all until much later.

I think I am going to take a look into the Q&A book and see if the answer is in there. I think most of these Ford Hall Forum lectures are up on the ARI site, so I might look into this later and get an exact quote. For the record, the lecture was "The Moratorium on Brains" given in 1971. This was the same lecture where she presented her famous "if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting" line about homosexuality.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Chris G,

I've heard that Jarrett Wollstein and Roy Childs both had their subscriptions cancelled. Was Childs' open letter dated 1969? If so, it wasn't Nathaniel Branden who took care of the cancellation.

Of course, both were anarchists ... and Mr. Valliant lumped anarchists in with Nazis and child molesters when he made his initial response to my query.

Michael,

You are correct about Ayn Rand defending her policy of canceling subscriptions in the Q&A after one of her Ford Hall Forum speeches; it was all about whether the letter writer was rude to her. Neil quoted it a little while ago [edit: sorry, he didn't; I'd mixed up the 1971 answer about cancellations with a 1972 answer about John Hospers and the Libertarian Party]; it's also in Ayn Rand Answers.

Robert C

[Dragonfly]

Also, of course, I really don't approve of misquoting and taking out of context any quote, and doubly so when a misquoted and out-of-context quote is taken as an important basis of one's case, the way Greg used the quote from the question and answer in the "Palyboy" interview. He simply left out the context, which was clearly one of talking about literature, and left out the first three words of the question, which were "As a novelist."

The full question is:

Playboy, March, 1964

Playboy: As a novelist, do you regard philosophy as the primary purpose of your writing?

Rand: No. My primary purpose is the projection of an ideal man, of man "as he might be and ought to be." Philosophy is the necessary means to that end.

Even without the words "as a novelist" it's obvious to me that this question refers to her writing of novels. The question would be rather odd if it was about her essays on philosophy, as the primary purpose of writing philosophical essays is of course philosophy. I think anyone who's talking about Rand's "purpose of her writing" is necessarily thinking of her novels. The point that Greg here makes is that she says that philosophy was the necessary means to that end (the projection of an ideal man). I think her meaning is clear: her primary purpose was writing novels in which she created her ideal man and she developed her philosophy to realize that purpose. IIRC she did say that more than once. So I don't see any misrepresentation on Greg's part.

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

I think I quoted what Rand said about Hospers from the Q & A. I skimmed the Q & A and couldn't find anything about subscriptions.

Personally, I do think that cancelling someone's subscription (unless he is a child molester or the like) is petty.

-NEIL

____

[Alfonso Jones]

Michael -

You asked about Rand's comments during the Q&A for Moratorium on Brains about cancelling subscriptions.

The material on this is about 15 minutes before the end of the Q&A session.

She says, in response to a question about whether she is cancelling subscriptions based on letters sent in, "I don't read those letters."

"My office has certain instructions and are carrying them out. My staff and my attorneys are taking care of that. Yes, I most certainly cancel subscribers for the following reason: Not if they disagree with me, If they write a lot of nonsense, fine, if they want to express themselves, I don't have to read it. It's when they are rude and crude and begin a letter something like 'Well, you know you are wrong' and go on from there. Those letters......It's an issue of manners."

Transcription mine...

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Robert Campbell]

Neil,

Sorry--I got the cancellation quote (from Ford Hall Forum 1971) mixed up with the slam at John Hospers (Ford Hall Forum 1972).

Both are in Ayn Rand Answers.

Robert Campbell

[Daniel Barnes]

Even without the words "as a novelist" it's obvious to me that this question refers to her writing of novels. The question would be rather odd if it was about her essays on philosophy, as the primary purpose of writing philosophical essays is of course philosophy. I think anyone who's talking about Rand's "purpose of her writing" is necessarily thinking of her novels. The point that Greg here makes is that she says that philosophy was the necessary means to that end (the projection of an ideal man). I think her meaning is clear: her primary purpose was writing novels in which she created her ideal man and she developed her philosophy to realize that purpose. IIRC she did say that more than once. So I don't see any misrepresentation on Greg's part.

That was my take too, DF.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You are correct about Ayn Rand defending her policy of canceling subscriptions in the Q&A after one of her Ford Hall Forum speeches; it was all about whether the letter writer was rude to her. Neil quoted it a little while ago; it's also in Ayn Rand Answers.

Robert,

I don't know how I missed Neil's quote. I have tried to find it just now and I couldn't, so at least I know it is well hidden or maybe just a passing mention.

For the record, I found the quote in the Q&A book, p. 131:

Is it true you canceled some subscriptions to The Objectivist because of letters certain subscribers wrote to you?

I don't read those letters, but my office has instructions and carries them out. I don't cancel subscriptions if someone disagrees with me—that his lost. But I do when the letters are rude and crude. It's not an issue of ideology, but of manners. I reject the modern conception of manners; I don't have to engage in conversation with, or offer a service to, anyone who doesn't know how to disagree with me politely.

That leaves out the clunker of her example!

I think I actually will spend some time one day and get the full quote. I know for a fact that this one was edited to take out the bad stuff.

On a related issue, Valliant always makes a big issue out of saying Nathaniel did all the intimidation and enforcing without Rand's knowledge or approval. Yet in the quote above, Rand stated publicly and quite clearly that her policy is to delegate enforcement of specific unpleasant policies.

So, using Valliant's standard and presuming that Rand did not change her policy over time, if Rand was not aware of the particulars of what Nathaniel was doing, she was certainly aware that he was doing it. If she did with Nathaniel like she did with her office, she delegated enforcement to him and told him exactly what to do.

I even think that Rand did not know the particulars in many instances, but I do not believe that she was unaware of all of the particulars, especially as many of them unfolded in her living room. That defies all sound reasoning.

There is a very unsound epistemological process—by Objectivist standards—going on with Valliant if he is sincere. I believe he is part of the time, but, of course, the other part just outright lying and manipulation.

The process is to discount the law of causality.

Here is an extreme example of what I mean for the sake of clarity. Suppose a bomb is tested and you observe that it makes a certain kind of hole. Then you look at a place where there has been a hole for some time. It has an identical size and shape as the present one from the bomb test and you know there were plenty of the same kinds of bombs readily available at the time it was made. You hear someone say, "One of those bombs went off back then."

You challenge this by asking, "How do you know? Did you see it? Did anyone you know see it? It could have been anything, even a band of worker ants. We need evidence."

This is a very unhealthy thinking process and I do not consider it on the same level as respect for the facts. Facts have causes when they are events. Any reason-based thinker knows this. And Objectivists know that entities are the sources of causes. (That's only true on one level, but that is another discussion for another time. In Objectivist metaphysics, entities are the sources of causes.)

Ayn Rand was an entity.

I just got an unpleasant emotional jolt from thinking that. I think this jolt is a leftover from my past blind hero worship. Anyway, how's that for a pisser of a statement for those who feel she is a goddess?

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

For the record, I found the quote in the Q&A book, p. 131:

Is it true you canceled some subscriptions to The Objectivist because of letters certain subscribers wrote to you?

I don't read those letters, but my office has instructions and carries them out. I don't cancel subscriptions if someone disagrees with me—that his loss. But I do when the letters are rude and crude. It's not an issue of ideology, but of manners. I reject the modern conception of manners; I don't have to engage in conversation with, or offer a service to, anyone who doesn't know how to disagree with me politely.

That leaves out the clunker of her example!

I think I actually will spend some time one day and get the full quote. I know for a fact that this one was edited to take out the bad stuff.

Michael,

Yes, that is the quote. I was going to key it in from Ayn Rand Answers, but you beat me to it

Judging from Bill P's transcription of what Rand actually said after her 1971 Ford Hall Forum speech, Robert Mayhew sanitized it pretty heavily.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I hope Brendan doesn't mind my quoting a post from Solo Passion, but I got a huge laugh out of the following spoof: Entertainment detail. He is quoting Valliant at the beginning.

James: “I don't know about this party where Hospers was "studiously" ignored after having been invited. What is your source for this? Who had the party, etc.?”

The party was hosted by the NBI Party Committee (New York Chapter) on clear written instructions from Miss Rand. It was a black tie event, held on 23 May 1962 in the Atlantis function room on the third floor of the Empire State Building. Starting time: 7:30 sharp.

Refreshments included canapes and those little toastie things with a spread of some indeterminate, although expensive, paste. Cocktails were vodka with vermouth wafted over the surface, supplied by Frank O’Connor Liquor Enterprises (1955) Ltd.

When Miss Rand entered the room with her entourage she immediately sensed an epistemological outrage. “The clock on the wall is three seconds fast,” she declared. “Find me the man responsible.” A burly young scholar known as Lenny the Philosopher discovered a workman cowering in a broom cupboard and threw him at Miss Rand’s feet. “P-p-please Miss Rand,” stammered the workman. “The building manager has mysteriously disappeared and I don’t know how to adjust the clock.”

Miss Rand glared at the workman. Her entourage stiffened with anticipation and not a little dread. “You dare to flaunt your ignorance to my face!” cried Miss Rand. “Spare me your slack-jawed, foggy stupor!” The workman shrugged. “Who is..? “Plagiarism!” roared Miss Rand. “Do you know how long I strove to create that maxim? Can you imagine the agony, the struggle of creation, the despair of a misplaced apostrophe?”

The workman’s eyes showed a glimmer of understanding as his flabby lips struggled to achieve a semblance of purpose. “B-but Miss Rand. If time is almost infinite, surely one can postulate that a range of say, more than zero seconds but less than three seconds is, in this context, perfectly exact?”

Miss Rand paused momentarily, her mind actively integrating a vast number of concretes, towering blocks of steel, acres of glass, and few small pieces of plastic. “You are correct,” she pronounced. “It is exact.” She turned to her entourage. “Observe how this simple untutored workman has grasped an important application of our concept of measurement. Follow his example. Lenny, take notes and names.”

A lively but serious and sober discussion ensued. The company was honoured to be present at the discovery/creation of a new way of thinking, despite the absence of the Hat, and exalted at being witness to the benevolence and magnanimity of Miss Ayn Rand as she demonstrated a tour de force of fact/value integration.

Except in one small corner, occupied by a forlorn, youngish man who appeared to sport an almost invisible, but nevertheless perceptible aura that spelled: leper; his only companion a weak smile. Presently, the youngish man was seen, or rather not seen, to slip out through a side door, bade farewell by the fading smile.

Frank O’Connor Liquor Enterprises (1955) Ltd moved gracefully to his customary place at Miss Rand’s elbow and murmured: “My dear, John has left the building.”

“John who?”

Two things jump out at me:

1. Something can never be funny unless there is something in reality that the spoof exaggerates.

2. The target of Brendan's spoof is not Rand & Co. per se, but how she is perceived. In other words, I think he is spoofing the boneheads.

Obviously, the boneheads feel this, even if they do not consciously state it. They were not amused to say the least (especially Valliant, see here).

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] Her desire to portray her vision of the ideal man was her impetus for doing philosophy. But ARCHN's thesis is quite a bit more than that: it's that what she produced was a rationalization.

Surely the impetus for philosophy is, as Greg says, the search for truth, not the desire to portray any particular personal vision.

Greg certainly does not say that the impetus -- or at least the typical impetus -- for philosophy is the search for truth. To the contrary, he says:

pg. 3

Although philosophers like to pretend that their primary goal is to discover the truth, this is rarely the case. Most philosophers are advocates and preachers who have made up their minds long before they attempt to systematize their views into a coherent philosophy.

That's what novels are for. Do you think if she'd later found the truth clashed with this initial "impetus", that men were not really like those in her books, she'd have altered her philosophy accordingly? Doesn't seem that way. In fact, this blurring of her personal vision and reality, and even the barefaced substitution of one for another, is a rather distinctive part of Rand's approach - for example her calling the most idealised character in The Fountainhead, Howard Roark, the only real human in the book. This is of course a prime example of a rationalisation of her basic motives.

I don't think that Rand would have been capable of ever concluding that she'd made any basic errors -- for more complicated reasons than supposing she'd found that reality and her vision of reality clashed. I don't think she could have found that. As I've said, I think that Rand was a mythologizer, and that she believed her own mythos and had to have believed it in order to have been able to produce a work like Atlas Shrugged.

But Greg is accusing Rand of outright dishonesty.

My bold emphasis in the following quotes.

He speaks on pg. xv of her "indulging in her own mendacious rationalizations."

He further says:

pg. xxix

Now obviously I have no direct access to Rand's mind. I have to judge her entirely by her writings--which is not always easy. In my opinion, the best way of circumventing some of the difficulties involved in interpreting Rand is to begin by focusing on her intentions as a philosopher, rather than on her actual doctrines. Her intentions at least are perfectly comprehensible--something not always the case with her philosophical doctrines, which are often riddled with non sequiturs and palpable distortions of reality. One of the greatest defects of her previous critics is that so many of them have no idea what it is that Rand is attempting to do in her philosophy. Every one of her doctrines is set up to achieve some predetermined goal. If you can find out what that goal is, it becomes that much easier to understand and interpret what Rand's philosophy is really all about.

pg. 3

(1) Although philosophers like to pretend that their primary goal is to discover the truth, this is rarely the case. Most philosophers are advocates and preachers who have made up their minds long before they attempt to systematize their views into a coherent philosophy. Ayn Rand is no exception to this general rule. She also had made up her mind long before she got around to systematizing her views. Her philosophy of Objectivism is largely a rationalization of her own preconceived, pet ideas. She nearly confesses as much in an interview with Alvin Toffler. In response to the question "Do you regard philosophy as the primary purpose of your writing?" Rand replied, "No. My primary purpose is the projection of an ideal man, of man 'as he might be and ought to be.' Philosophy is a necessary means to that end."

To admit, as Rand does here, that one's philosophy is merely a means to some end other than discovering the truth is tantamount to admitting that one's philosophy consists merely of an attempt to rationalize one's own personal convictions.

These are accusations, and they distort what she was actually saying in the interview (and what she said elsewhere as well about the goal of her writing).

Ellen

___

[Daniel Barnes]

Hi Ellen

Greg responds as follows:

Hi Daniel,

As far as I can tell, the main point of difference between Ellen and I is she doesn't have a problem that Rand's "impetus" (i.e., motivation) for her philosophy was her desire to portray her vision of the ideal man. She doesn't see that as being equivalent to rationalizing. I do. In fact, I would go further: you have to be very naiive to think that having such a motivation isn't going to lead to rationalization. After all, most of what passes for philosophy is rationalization. I don't believe Ellen appreciates how difficult it is for most human beings to avoid rationalization, particularly in philosophy. They rationalize without realizing it. To avoid such rationalizing in philosophy, one really has to be rather anal about fact checking and self-criticism—and someone who's impetus for philosophy is the projection of an ideal man is obviously not being anal in this truth-discovering way.

In addition, I also suspect that Ellen believes that my whole charge of rationalization rests on this passage (along with a similar passage in the Romantic Manifesto). But these passages aren't the main reasons why I suspect that Rand rationalized. The main reason for my conclusion is that, if Rand really was concerned with discovering truth rather than promoting her pet ideas, she would not have concluded that men are, psychologically speaking, the product of their premises. Rand is too smart to have reached such a view through honest error.

I'm a little busy right now working to get my the new edition of my brother's radio show off the ground, so I won't have time to respond any time soon. But you can use what I've written above if you wish,

best wishes,

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

I am curious about why time freezes for Rand according to Nyquist.

Rand started out going into philosophy in order to project the ideal man. She needed philosophy to define such a man and she stated this openly. But after she created the ideal man in fiction, she no longer pursued that and she stopped writing fiction. This is history and I don't see how anyone can deny it and be serious. So hopefull, we agree on that.

After Atlas Shrugged, Rand was in the thick of philosophy because of how she developed the novel. I can agree with that. But when she started writing nonfiction, her focus turned on finding truth and validating the truth she had already found and applying her findings to the real world as her main goals of writing, not on projecting an ideal man—not even justifying an ideal man. This is painfully obvious on just a cursury reading of her literature.

I find holding Rand to the same motivation in the two main phases of her productive life, when her stated goals and output both contradict such a position, to be a rationalization in itself.

I am in general agreement with Ellen regarding what she has posted on this.

Nyquist may look and look and find some errors in Rand's ideas and a few monkey-shines in her deeds. But he will not find dishonesty at the core. If Rand was anything, she believed body, mind and soul in what she was doing.

That's a windmill for any Don Quixote who insists on charging and it will not change into a ferocious giant no matter how much he believes it.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Nyquist may look and look and find some errors in Rand's ideas and a few monkey-shines in her deeds. But he will not find dishonesty at the core. If Rand was anything, she believed body, mind and soul in what she was doing.

Hi Mike

I can't answer for Greg. You can put it to him on his site if you like. To me however, passionate belief in something can blind you to reality. In fact it's probably the single biggest cause of such blindness. I'm not going to call it deception; more like self-deception. But it can be a fine line, particularly when your ego's at stake, and when you put your ego at the centre of your philosophy. After all, you don't debate, you don't contend..you know.

[Roger Bissell]

Michael -

It's very revealing (or puzzling) to read the tape transcription side by side with the edited version of Rand's 1971 response to a question at Ford Hall Forum about whether she canceled some subscriptions to The Objectivist because of letters written to her by certain subscribers:

Transcribed version..................................................................... Edited version

I don't read those letters. My office has certain instructions........ I don't read those letters, but my office has instructions

and are carrying them out. My staff and my attorneys are............ and carries them out. I don't cancel subscriptions if someone

taking care of that. Yes, I most certainly cancel subscribers........ disagrees with me--that's his loss. But I do when the letters

for the following reason: Not if they disagree with me. If............. are rude and crude. It's not an issue of ideology, but of

they write a lot of nonsense, fine, if they want to express.......... manners. I reject the modern concept of manners; I don't

themselves, I don't have to read it. It's when they are rude........ have to engage in conversation with, or offer a service to,

and crude and begin a letter something like, "Well, you............. anyone who doesn't know how to disagree with me politely.

know you are wrong" and go on from there............................... Those letters...it's an issue of manners.

It has already been noted that the concrete example of being "rude and crude" that Rand gave in the transcribed version was omitted from the edited version. But that's not even the half of it! Look at all the other phraseology that was added to the edited version that was not present in Rand's original remarks. (1) "That's his loss." (2) "I reject the modern concept of manners." (3) "I don't have to engage in conversation with, or offer a service to, anyone who doesn't know how to disagree with me. These are all things that sound like Rand could have said them, and I wouldn't be surprised if she actually did say them on some other occasion. I'm thinking specifically of her appearance on the Phil Donahue show, where she had the run-in with the snotty audience member. I'd bet dollars to donuts that she uttered (2) and (3) during her huff on Donahue's show. Anyone have a video of that appearance handy, so they can check to see if this is so.

In any case, not only did a significant item disappear down the memory hole (perhaps because it made her look bad?), but also three significant items popped up out of thin air--aka the editor's mind? And why??

Consider the criteria for editing given by Robert Mayhew in his introduction to Ayn Rand Answers:

(1) Most of the editing I did consisted of cutting and line-editing to bring the material closer to the level of conciseness, clarity, and smoothness appropriate to a written work. Very little had to be cut out owing to repetition.

(2) I should mention, however that some (but not much) of my editing aimed to clarify working that if left unalterned, might be taken to imply a viewpoint that she explicitly rejected in her written works.

OK, are the above (underscored) deletions and insertions due to a desire for conciseness, clarity, and smoothness? No way.

Are the above deletions and insertions meant to clarify wording some readers might take to imply a viewpoint she explicitly rejected in her written works? I don't see how they're needed for that purpose.

So, why include the insertions? I suggest that Mayhew had a lot more transcribed material at hand than is indicated in the front of the book, and that he used some of the comments from the Donahue show to "flesh out" the answer, which sorely needed fleshing out, once the deletion of the concrete example was made. That is the only possible sense in which the three inserted comments constitute "editing" in any reasonable sense of the term.

In other words, if I am correct, Mayhew was conflating or blending together Rand's comments about rude questioners from two different occasions, while not indicating that there was more than the one source for the "quote." That's the only way to make sense out of what he has done to Rand's Ford Hall Forum comments. Otherwise, it's not only dishonest, but blatantly irrational and senseless.

REB

[Brendan Hutching]

Yes. She's reported as saying, angrily, that Galt doesn't contend, disupte, debate, or similar terms. In other words, what Galt does is to pronounce: there it is, the correct view, not open to question.

This is not in keeping with Francisco's statement to Rearden in Atlas Shrugged: "There is no evil thought save one, the failure to think."

___

Yes, but you can easily enough make these statements compatible by inserting ‘rational’ before thinking and then demarcating the limits of what constitutes rationality. Then one can say: ‘your irrational whims; my rational, reality-based knowledge’.

(I was brought up Catholic, and the official view was that the final arbiter of one’s moral decision was one’s conscience, provided that conscience was formed in conformity with the truths as revealed by the church. This way of arguing probably goes back to the origins of human thought.)

As far as I can see, the only remedy for this tendency is to insist that all knowledge claims must as much as possible be contestable. People with strong and original views often have great difficulty with this in practice, which only underscores the need to insist on it.

Objectivism has had a strong tendency to dismiss the notion of contestability. As Hugh Akston puts it in AS: “We never make assertions, Miss Taggart,”…“That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell - we show. We do not claim - we prove.”

The issue is compounded because everyone has their own limits. Most of the time I can’t be bothered arguing with conspiracy theorists or new-age types, but then I accept global warming theory, which many people dismiss as a deluded fantasy or worse.

Brendan

[Neil Parille]

Does anyone have the 1998 Hospers piece from Liberty that Valliant mentions?

-NEIL

____

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rand started out going into philosophy in order to project the ideal man.

That isn't even quite right historically. Her earliest extant philosophical journals go back to 1934, eleven years before she got the idea of Atlas Shrugged -- for the writing of which book she had to do a great deal of explicit working out of her views. Also, she did a certain amount of non-fiction writing in connection with political issues during the years in between.

It was after Atlas, when she kept being asked the question whether the purpose of the novel was primarily didactic, that she explained in terms of the primary goal being to project the sort of person she wanted to see, that her goal wasn't primarily didactic.

Greg has twisted this to such an extent, he makes it look as if she was saying that she contrived philosophy in order to provide support for a particular kind of person. This isn't the only way in which he misses Rand, just doesn't "get" her psyche. As I commented a couple times on ARCHN, I do not recognize Ayn Rand from Greg's depictions of her.

Ellen

___