That "Frightful Mess" Quotation

[Alfonso Jones]

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.

Well, . . . .

I am glad that you post on OL. I'm always wary of "just plain perfect" - - - that leaves open the question of "a perfect what?"

Bill P (smiling in a friendly fashion)

[Jonathan]

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?

If Ellen is right that the Objectivist idea of "moral perfection" means something like "doing the best one can in one's circumstances," it sounds to me as if Pigero, Fahy and Rand might indeed qualify as "morally perfect." But then again, so might Al Gore, Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. We'd have no way of proving that they weren't doing the best in their circumstances.

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.

Wears Role end when ewe knead hymn?

[Alfonso Jones]

On this whole "moral perfection" matter:

Rand said (in the Galt speech):

Discard that unlimited license to evil which consists of claiming that man is imperfect. By what standard do you damn him when you claim it? Accept the fact that in the realm of morality nothing less than perfection will do. But perfection is not to be gauged by mystic commandments to practice the impossible, and your moral stature is not to be gauged by matters not open to your choice. Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute.

It seems to me that she is:

1) Refusing to tie morality to religious commandments

2) Refusing to tag someone with an explicit no-win scenario (rejecting Original Sin ("not to be gauged by matters not open to your choice")

3) Refusing to tie it to errors of knowledge

but instead saying that it is "full and relentless use of your mind."

The urging is clear - - - - don't accept unearned guilt, and don't accept moral guilt based on errors of knowledge. Think things through as far as you are able. Beyond that - - - I don't see the reason for the obsession with "moral perfection." Whether by Rand or those who come after her (some double meaning intended). Other than the urging - it just doesn't seem relevant to actual living on this planet. Perhaps someone can explain how it matters???

Bill P

Edited December 12, 2009 by Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bill,

Have you noticed that "moral perfection" gets turned into a floating abstraction when people talk about Rand being morally perfect or not?

None of the referents folks point to fit the concept in any way I can make sense of and observe for myself. There's always a clunker in the works. That goes for arguments both for and against Rand.

I get really tired of trying to make sense of double-speak.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Actually, I meant "tow" not "toe" -- I should have somehow indicated I was deliberately punning, no need for Roland's agreement.

I have an image of Robert's crusade as being like a heavy freight barge he insists on help in pulling.

Ellen

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill,

Have you noticed that "moral perfection" gets turned into a floating abstraction when people talk about Rand being morally perfect or not?

None of the referents folks point to fit the concept in any way I can make sense of and observe for myself. There's always a clunker in the works. That goes for arguments both for and against Rand.

I get really tired of trying to make sense of double-speak.

Michael

Yes. One can write (almost from memory) the interactions...

Party 1: Rand was morally perfect.

Party 2: What do you mean by moral perfection?

Party 1: What! You don't think Rand was morally perfect? What wrong could possibly have been done by the author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead?

and on and on it goes...

But it's another couple of orders of magnitude more absurd when the subject is, instead of Rand, a Perigo, etc... At least Rand has some formidable credentials - her novels, her nonfiction, the philosophy she originated/discovered, etc... Not that that is really to the point - it at least makes the emotional impulse of those who would assert moral perfection a little more intelligible.

Bill P

[Robert Campbell]

Well, Ellen Stuttle has received her reward for suddenly discovering the "point of PARC."

Jim Valliant has now announced

http://www.solopassi...6#comment-82317

I have just been catching up with the discussions here at SOLO. And I am blown away. Ms. Stuttle, you are the reason I wrote PARC.

I rather doubt that Mr. Valliant's opus was written for Ms. Stuttle.

But is she ever welcome to it...

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Praise be to the fruits of kissing ass...

(I actually want my ass kissed, too. What do you think it will take for Stuttle to kiss my ass like she kisses Perigo's?)

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Praise be to the fruits of kissing ass...

Picking season for dingleberries?

He shared a couple other gems:

I wrongly associated you with those at that other website whom I know to be less than honest.

The place that must not be named. That filthy liar’s den. You're reading this so you must be there, you're going to need a good wash.

Agree with what I say or not, you have displayed nothing but the qualities of someone seeking the truth, not the fulfillment of a pre-existing ideological agenda.

Pre-existing ideological agenda? Who’s got a book to sell?

I still don’t get Ellen Stuttle’s “Point”, can someone tell me what it is? That PARC deserves a grade of F+? From what I’ve read that’s my impression.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Stuttle's "point of PARC" is that the main theme is to defend Rand against a negative public image and the secondary theme is to refute the Brandens. That's one of the reasons Valliant dedicated PARC to Stuttle.

I strongly disagree with her "point of PARC," but I do congratulate her on the dedication. She earned it and deserves every morsel of credit. I, for one, will always remember her as the belated muse of PARC.

Anyway, it takes a certain kind of fiber to plant a wet sloppy one on Perigo's derriere and such character deserves its just reward.

I hold that PARC's themes are as follows:

1. (Main theme): Trash the Brandens anywhere and everywhere possible (and then some, including the motives of people who knew Rand and agree with the Branden accounts), and

2. (Secondary theme): Present the sanitized "morally perfect" and "savior of mankind" view of Rand promoted by Peikoff, with "goddess to worship" and "raped goddess" subtexts.

And there is a distant third that I only thought of now. I believe Valliant actually tried to compromise Rand's journal entries and entangle the meanings of her words with his more sanitized picture of her. In other words, I think he was trying to defend Rand's image against Rand herself.

Anyway, any negative press Rand might have from media people who do no like her has not stopped Beck, Limbaugh, Stossel, Tea Party speakers, etc. etc., etc., from embracing her books and ideas, nor has it made any impact whatsoever on the half-a-million plus copies of Rand's books sold every year. Those folks certainly don't hold a negative public image of Rand.

Hell, they are the ones pushing Burns's and Heller's books about Rand to best-seller levels.

In Vailliant-Stuttle-land, Rand's public image has been so tarnished by the Brandens that she is selling oodles of books, inspiring a political revolution and 2 new bios of her are going best-seller. But thank God Valliant arrived to save the day.

Michael

[anonrobt]

Dennis,

Stuttle's "point of PARC" is that the main theme is to defend Rand against a negative public image and the secondary theme is to refute the Brandens. That's one of the reasons Valliant dedicated PARC to Stuttle.

I strongly disagree with her "point of PARC," but I do congratulate her on the dedication. She earned it and deserves every morsel of credit. I, for one, will always remember her as the belated muse of PARC.

Anyway, it takes a certain kind of fiber to plant a wet sloppy one on Perigo's derriere and such character deserves its just reward.

I hold that PARC's themes are as follows:

1. (Main theme): Trash the Brandens anywhere and everywhere possible (and then some, including the motives of people who knew Rand and agree with the Branden accounts), and

2. (Secondary theme): Present the sanitized "morally perfect" and "savior of mankind" view of Rand promoted by Peikoff, with "goddess to worship" and "raped goddess" subtexts.

And there is a distant third that I only thought of now. I believe Valliant actually tried to compromise Rand's journal entries and entangle the meanings of her words with his more sanitized picture of her. In other words, I think he was trying to defend Rand's image against Rand herself.

Anyway, any negative press Rand might have from media people who do no like her has not stopped Beck, Limbaugh, Stossel, Tea Party speakers, etc. etc., etc., from embracing her books and ideas, nor has it made any impact whatsoever on the half-a-million plus copies of Rand's books sold every year. Those folks certainly don't hold a negative public image of Rand.

Hell, they are the ones pushing Burns's and Heller's books about Rand to best-seller levels.

In Vailliant-Stuttle-land, Rand's public image has been so tarnished by the Brandens that she is selling oodles of books, inspiring a political revolution and 2 new bios of her are going best-seller. But thank God Valliant arrived to save the day.

Michael

Heh heh - except for the obscenity of it all, too funny... but I imagine it was somewhat similar with regards Aristotle, and Plato [and who knows how many others]...

[9thdoctor]

1. (Main theme): Trash the Brandens anywhere and everywhere possible (and then some, including the motives of people who knew Rand and agree with the Branden accounts), and

2. (Secondary theme): Present the sanitized "morally perfect" and "savior of mankind" view of Rand promoted by Peikoff, with "goddess to worship" and "raped goddess" subtexts.

By analysing ad nauseum the typewriter story and the level and quality of evidence of the drinking habits of an unemployed cuckold.

At least it keeps Jabba busy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I debated with myself about whether to post the following from yesterday, but I want it on record over here.

From James Valliant on SLOP (posted Thu, 2009-12-17 00:53): Thank You

I have just been catching up with the discussions here at SOLO. And I am blown away.

Ms. Stuttle, you are the reason I wrote PARC.

We have never met. We have exchanged a couple of brief emails, but, apart from that, all of our acquaintance has been online here at SOLO.

And I have been less than friendly during most of that exchange. I wrongly associated you with those at that other website whom I know to be less than honest.

Yet, you have displayed the all-too-rare honesty, rationality and courage of an independent mind, coming to your own conclusions about each of the charges leveled for and against Rand. You have approached the subject with a critical eye and a demand for evidence, and with the temperament of a wise appellate Justice.

Agree with what I say or not, you have displayed nothing but the qualities of someone seeking the truth, not the fulfillment of a pre-existing ideological agenda.

This, more than anything else, is what I had hoped to inspire with PARC. Although we've never met, you have given me a profound sense of visibility as an author.

Will you accept my apology and my sincerest thanks?

Ellen Stuttle's reply, starting with the quote from Valliant (posted Thu, 2009-12-17 06:43): James

"Will you accept my apology and my sincerest thanks?"

Yes, of course -- and thank you both for the apology and thanks and for your other remarks.

I'm sitting here blushing and rather at a loss for words -- I signed on to post something about Ventura, which I will post in a moment, and had no expectation of seeing such a statement as you wrote; I'm taken aback by surprise.

What can I say? May the truth emerge victorious?

And on with the quest...

Ellen

And that is that. PARC is now duly dedicated and accepted by one who deserves the honor.

(blush...)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I had my reasons for posting there for the last 15 or so months, but not any longer. That Stuttle/Valliant love fest completely queered it for me.

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

I just had a browsing accident, I checked out some SLOP. The Burns/Valliant “symposium” has been delayed, per Jabba because of a Burns family emergency.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7057

Now here’s the amazing part, take it away Maestro Hutt:

.... you should quit saying "Give Obama a break" on other threads. They're all evil, and actually, evil to the magnitude where they should be taken out, as Hitler should have been. Obama, Brown, Mugabe, Chavez ... all of them. Alas, no one has the guts to say it, let alone do it.

*Now* watch the Brandroids go nuts.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7183