Philip Coates

> Then she added: "I know that I'm evading, but at least I'm conscious that I'm doing it, so it's not as bad." This is what's known as whimsy or sly humor. Sort of like, but not quite the same as when she referred repeatedly, semi-disparagingly to "Objectivist bromides" in her fiction? or non-fiction? tapes (I forget which...I heard them unedited.) [semi-disparaging in the sense that she didn't want them taken as floating abstractions or she wanted people to move beyond parotting them to more original thinking, if I recall the contexts correctly.]

> I just noticed that Phil Coates is suffering from the flu, but I assume that he's still alive [Ellen] No. I just passed away - the rumors of my death have been greatly understated.

> I have never really seen the kind of idolatry of Rand that you describe in your book as being endemic to the Objectivist movement [Jim] Perhaps there is a difference in the pre-split movement and the more 'disillusioned' post '68 movement(s)? Or in the attitudes of people closer to the center or inner circle in those days? As someone on the periphery of Peikoff's "outer circle" (not inner) a decade later, I didn't find there were many discussions of Rand or pressure to idolize (I hate that word).

That's right, blame everything on me: EVERYBODY SHIT ON PHIL :-)

You have to give me a little time, I'm recovering from the flu: If I kneel down right now, I'll probably vomit. More seriously, it was quite detailed. I'd like to look thru my files for it first before trying to wing it (and then I hope areas where I lack knowledge or am hypothesizing could be corrected.)

I sat down about a year ago and wrote out about a dozen (if I recall) reasons why it seemed to me NBI was so successful and growing at an exponential? rate compared to ARI and TOC and how many of them were things neither is doing but could learn from.

Michael, just now it looks as if PARC is a major topic of argument and contemptous putdowns on each of four different websites.... Solopassion, Noodlefood, and now Objectivist Living and RoR. If I were Jim V and believed in my book, I would be trying to engage in debate and start a lively thread on each and every website. And keep it going. Challenge opponents in such a way that they feel they have to not let it pass. But you are helping him. He's BAITING YOU to help him make his book be the central topic in the Objectivist movement - agree or disagree is not important. (Same thing with the ludicrous idea that TOC -has to respond- which to their credit they are not. Or the idea that everyone -has to read it- or they are irresponsible.) He can always count on you to rise to the bait (the Hessen thread on RoR most recently). Jim is not a troll..he believes in his book...but you are "feeding him". In principle, a book about Rand's life is a worthy project. But the way this has developed and the potential for another '68 or '89 schism which will go on for -years-, it hasn't been handled well **regardless** of whether the book is basically wrong-headed or on target. The problem is that energy spent on debating Rand's personal life in the trivial manner in which this is largely taking place is energy taken away from more philosophical issues, from spreading the philosophy, from more creative projects...and, since it is inevitably emotional, has lots of fact-checking and side issues to explore, leads to hard feelings, subverts every website it is on (except for Noodlefood where the people who have not removed from the site pretty much all agree). I want to suggest to you to stop doing that, whether on this list or trying to keep up with all of it. Just ignore the more 'volatile' aspects of it. Suppress the desire to have a "comeback" to everything. [if you can do what Ellen does which is 'chew' the book line by line that's different...but that doesn't require going and trying to do it on every or most lists.]

> Ex-Rantian Now that's funny :-) If I weren't so opposed to calling people names, there are people in the Oist movement I might call RantDroids.....stop, stop, I can't control myself.... :-$

Dammit, Barbara, there are only thee crosses at a time up on Mount Calvary and Michael and Kat are sharing one in the lapsed missionary position - as soon as decomposition sets in and one of them is free, you'll be up there... Patience.

Guys, I wouldn't use terms like "parasite", "whore", etc. because they imply that the mistakes of those on the other side are universally intentional or dishonest (and I thought this site was supposed to be a haven from this sort of name-calling and tit-for-tat? If it's not then I wonder if I am in the right place). There is lots of room for honest error and jumping to conclusions in judging people...Rand, Branden, whoever. It's tempting when someone calls you immoral or dishonest or repeatedly vilifies you to eventually retaliate by using the same language, to escalate the rhetoric without proof. But don't do it without solid proof. And, no, you can't say "well, I'll let myself do it on only one little thread" or "they started it" or "I have to fight fire with fire, prove my manhood, and defend myself" or "this is just for -humor-".

Michael, I assume you are talking about the endless preoccupation with this at SoloPassion (and Noodlefood?). I like to prune down lot of verbiage to simple statements and here is what they are saying: 1. TOC is 'endorsing' or allying itself with Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden by inviting them to speak. 2. The Brandens are going to be speaking on Rand 3. There is a book out which 'proves' to -every reader- they are bad people and, not only that, have -nothing to offer- intellectually. 4. TOC organizers are morally obligated to have read that book. 5. TOC agrees with it. 6. Therefore TOC is acting immorally. Now, when you essentalize the argument this way, you can see that it is a bad one...and there are multiple flaws in not one but EACH of the five premises. The only thing that makes it seem plausible to the readers is endless numbing repetition.

I have the flu. Maybe I'll have more suggestions once my mind comes back to me. Right now I'm a vebegtal, vategbubble, vegatableau.... ...dammmit.

> What a fascinating subject! [barbara] I agree! All of the interlinked subjects: attention, repression, suppression, filtering which have no negative moral connotation necessarily and evasion, which does. And how to organize these concepts: There is a whole literature in psychology on the first of these, attention - "the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on one thing while ignoring other things" - which I have on my list of things to read about / think though more thoroughly.

>I've never believed that "evasion" -- I loathe that term, it's the Objectivist equivalent of cancer -- is all-of-a-piece; that is, that one simply evades or one doesn't. [barbara] Rather than say there are degrees of evasion, I would limit the concept itself very strictly to: willful failure to look when you know you should, know how to do it, and know that it is necessary right at that time. I would put it that there are -more- possibilities than total evasion vs. full focus. So I think evasion is a valid concept but one often too quickly or broadly applied in the real world, regardless of whether it applies to Rand...so it seems we agree on that. > It's often difficult for any of us to always be certain whether or not we have looked at everything we should have looked at with regard to an issue; the most honest introspection sometimes can leave us without a clear answer about our own functioning. I agree with both of your points, Barbara: i) not always knowing that we've looked at everything, ii) not always getting good results. But I think I'd add a third aspect -- iii) not choosing to focus on an issue and not knowing for sure that one needs to, or not at that time: There are various psychological mechanisms of 'selectiveness': attention (we can't attend to every impinging sense perception or thought or event or even emotion which comes in; repression and suppression of emotions; etc. There is also a deflection of issues that you think you already have under control and so you are impatient about thinking further about something or you are busy and postpone. (There is even just lack of energy and procrastination or "I don't want to get into it, I can't deal with it right now...but I will.") What strikes me is that people often have many reasons for not attending to something they need to explore. They can have whole sides of their personality or awareness which are undeveloped and which need to be, but they are just not able to see that at the time...or ever. Therapists try to help them, but they have elaborate defense mechanisms built up...or they don't know how to get in touch...or they simply don't see it. These mechanisms are often subconscious or were created very early in childhood and thus are not in their conscious control. (Psychologist Edith Packer once told me, if I'm not reading too much into my recollection, that the more intelligent the patient or client, the more elaborate are the unconscious structures built in to explain why everything they do makes perfect sense.) I would say you can't call something an evasion or a moral failure unless it is clearly and consciously chosen, and there are lots of other possible explanations for dumb or insenitive or self-harmful behaviors, or else counselors and self-help books would go out of business. I would even suspect that -most- really big errors that good people make which mess up their lives are not the result of evasion but of psychological problems and blind spots (or even lack of working intelligence applied to oneself.) Phil

> [1]Rand often was very good about recognizing that she needed more information or understanding about something before coming to a conclusion...There seemed no element in her psychology of pretending. > [2] her failure to look inward, her failure to so much as raise the question of whether she might have contributed to the mutual agony she and Nathaniel were enduring... her endless joy in understanding new subjects and in gaining new knowledge... did not pertain, as far as I could see, to gaining knowledge of Ayn Rand [barbara] Barbara, would it be an accurate brief summary of your total view of her that she was eager to gain new knowledge and was unprecedentedly successful at it in most extrospective areas, but that she had particularly a huge blind spot in some areas of knowledge which revolved around psychology? And that blind spot was in certain areas of introspection, emotional understanding, emotional self-control, and judgement of people? But that does not mean she had -no- profound insight in these areas (as her clear view into her own writing processes indicates). Or am I over-simplifying? In other words, there were areas where she objectively did need to gain further self-knowledge (say, to improve the quality of her life and personal relationships), but she just honestly didn't see that? There is a difference between an honest blind spot (such as thinking you have already figured out something in a certain introspective area when you are mistaken) and a willful refusal to see. No genius sees everything. Phil

Wow! John, as someone who loves poetry (and art), this is a great and insightful poem, perfectly balanced and written, with emotion under the surface, and expressing important aspects of what it means to be human and to have stature. Totally independent of any religion. It deserves to be widely seen and associated with this painting. Not only is it powerful standing alone, but I had not fully liked and appreciated the painting until I read your poem. Each of these had -completely- escaped me, because I had not fully studied the painting: the full meaning of what the two of them are doing, and feeling, and choosing & the significance of the glimmer of light in the distance. Phil

> She very rarely questioned the validity of whatever she felt, of any of her actions or reactions, of whatever she wanted to do, of any of the conclusions she reached. Barbara, I'm wondering if she'd done most of that years before she met you? (Or for example, in her journals where she is telling herself she doesn't know something, find the answer to X, etc...)

Barbara, that's an excellent series of examples. I'm impressed by the number and variety of cases and contexts that you have thought of. (This makes me look forward even more to your future book because the ability to provide a spectrum of concrete examples is a rare and important skill.) My first reaction is that -- as in the legal definition and case law of negligence or what is "contributory" to a crime or what constitutes being an "accessory" or "aiding and abetting" a crime -- there is a progressive spectrum here between what is ethically monstrous and what is not only that but punishable by law. A more complex issue than I had originally realized, but I think that a violation of rights has to be found as in your point about being an accessory to a violation. Your point about without risk to your self, i.e., without cost, seems relevant, as well. (Michael, I was not referring to you in my previous post or trying to be insulting but generalizing about what too many Objectivists do.)

It also occurs to me that there is a whole literature on this sort of thing and that these kinds of issues have been thought through for thousands of years going back to Roman times: It's part of the discipline of law -- "implied contract", "promise to perform", "oral contract", "written contract". It's a repeated mistake of Objectivists in their insularity to too often try to arrive at the truth of complex issues by asking other Objectivists, none of whom in this case has ever cracked a law book. The blind leading the blind. So I've decided that the best way for me to understand the ethical and legal issues surrounding issues of contract and responsibility is to actually go and read something on these subjects. I suspect my car example has come up thousands of times in American law courts... ..Maybe even in ancient times. Pushing someone out of a moving chariot! Ejecting your fifth wife from the harem without advance notice or alimony! :-)

> a man who camped out in the wilderness for several days with a child he encountered by chance, had plenty of food and refused to share it with the child resulting in the child's death from starvation, violated that child's right to life? [Michael] I don't think this is a well-formulated or completely fleshed out example. Why is he camping out with him, to watch him starve? What is the implicit contract or agreement? Contrast this to the example that you offer to take someone else's child camping. You have accepted the responsibility to care for him, feed him, etc. I wouldn't spend much time discussing extreme or emergency situations which are only going to happen once in a trillion times or, worse, are completeley unrealistic or without the context completely fleshed out. A better issue to discuss is the one of: when do you assume ethical and legal responsibility. One example is bringing a child into the world in which you assume a whole host of legal and ethical responsibilities for nurturing, development, and protection. Another is agreeing to render a service or a form of cooperation. Many irresponsible people think that a service or cooperation can always be instantly terminated. They are wrong (over-simplistic and dropping context). One example: I give you a ride in my car, saying I will take you to the next town or to Los Angeles. We get into an argument. I push you out the door in the middle of nowhere. Have I violated your rights? Often, yes (it depends on context). My offering you a ride entails that if I choose to terminate that ride earlier than agreed upon, I at least not put you in danger: I can't eject you into a blizzard, for example. Again, context, if the argument makes me feel like I am in danger...you start waving a knife around or talking about how you'd like to kill people, etc...then the situation has suddenly changed.

Hi Barbara, I don't have the negative view of Leonard's character that you do. I do believe he has blind spots, particularly in his grasp of psychology and some of them were the same as Ayn Rand's and many (maybe even most Objectivists) - too harsh and too quick on the trigger condemnation of people, coupled with a presumption that one can psychoanalze from a distance or from a partial sample and reduce the result to only one possible explantion. Usually the worst of a menu of possible explanations, as in the streaker being assumed to be a nihilist. Perhaps we don't agree, but I wouldn't conclude someone does not have genuine feelings or values because he at one time in his life complained he felt nothing about movies, books, etc. I wouldn't take him at his word or take it as a lifelong self-assessment. I'd look to see if that were the case at a time when he was less "down" perhaps. I also don't think any human being can literally feel "nothing" in areas that broad. Other possible explanations? Melodramatic overstatement of someone in therapy? Romantic problems in a relationship? Unearned guilt or over-negativity? During the ten years when I saw him reasonably regularly (as a student at brookly poly, in his home, etc.), I in fact found him to be *very* emotional, very in touch with his feelings...and that's reflected in many of his passionate lectures and insights on literature, art, etc. Is it possible for someone to be repressed and overcompensate in regard to passion? Yes. But I think you have to be very well-trained in psychology or a very close and good observer to know that this is what is going on. So, my bottom line conclusion about Leonard is that he sometimes has drawn very foolish or out of touch conclusions (like he did about Kelley, about libertarians in general, about the streaker). But they fall within the general category of not understanding people in a very specific way: *trying to deduce who they are "downward" by reference to pure philosophical archetypes as opposed to empirically and "upward" by a complex inductive analysis of lots of instances*. And he got that from Rand, who I also think was honest. Even though the effects have been hurtful and destructive to you and other people (and myself) who didn't deserve it. If I were to summarize in one phrase the problem or problem area I find with many ARI people, with Rand, with Peikoff: OUT-OF-TOUCH with the real world in certain areas, especially those which anyway involve dealing with the more complex areas of the humanities: i) judging individual people as opposed to trends or broad patterns, ii) lack of a detailed cultural and historical understanding (as evinced in the "nuke tehran today" dropping of context about the fact that the Iranian people are on our side and against their rulers). And ii) springs from i). Misunderstanding countries and movements springs from misunderstading individuals who are the units from which the broader groups are formed. I realize the part of this where I'm talking about individual people (LP and AR) disagrees with your views. But we can agree to disagree on some judgements of people inside Objectivism. Phil

Glenn, I understand your point about there being a meritocracy based essentially on research. I would still argue, though, that a proper meritocracy for someone who the students' parents are paying to teach their kids would have to be someone who excels in doing the function they are expecting. The meritocracy has to be -objective- based on performing the proper central function of the job (teacher). Also, the qeustion is whether the 'established reputations' are warranted. Whether the people most respected (especially in the humanities) for frequency in publishing, even though what they publish is pomo or nit-picking or relativist or false...or even just trivial and overspeialized (again, this is more the case in the humanities) can't be considered to on objective "merit" to be the best people. So on both counts, from what I've seen of the results of academic press stuff, I would still argue that in fields like philosophy, history, literature, etc the people in the full professorships are not heavily the product of meritocracy. Some personal experience plays a role: When I spoke to tenured profs at Brown and Michigan during my undergrad and grad years I was way too often struck by how dumb or unoriginal or tunnel-visioned they were. And how they couldn't even understand my questions, let alone answer them adequately Then when I met Peikoff, stuck in an adjunct dive at Brooklyn Polytechnic and not likely to get tenure, and I took college and graduate level philosophy courses from him for a couple years after I had just gotten degrees from two "better schools", it struck me how he always grasped everything I asked him and how he could have eaten almost most of them for lunch intellectually (and not just on Objectivism). On the point about how Harvard grants tenure, thanks for the insight (I assume you are familiar with that school)! Do you think that would be true of other top colleges? Phil C

I just read the Harvard Crimson article and this seems to be a case study on how to blaze new trails, how to be an influential intellectual, how to apply philosophy and psychology. My only worry is that he is not on a tenure track, apparently. I'm not sure why. But one suspects they have carefully limited how long he can teach before he gets booted and has to start all over again at a less respected place. I get the sense that prestigious universities "use and discard" popular professors who are not "rigorous", which means Academically Correct: Get their hopes up once they get their PhD. when you know the department will ultimately give tenure to someone with the same lefty or pomo or super-specialist leanings as the existing faculty. Let them teach for a few years so that the students get -something- out of their humanities courses. I saw the same thing with Forrest McDonald. The most popular teacher at Brown and a conservative. The best teacher I had there by a country mile - he was brilliant and envied his popularity by the rest of the history department. They used him for a few years. Then they kicked him down the stairs. Universities are not a meritocracy.

Kat, the thing I like most about your chart is it's simple and essentialized. You have already selected one to five points falling under each of the major categories such as Ethics, Politics. It's important that you don't add more or material of secondary importance (or make it an obsessive-compulsive laundry list). It's an overview, something desperately needed. If I recall, Kelley already has a huge monster chart in the LSO which looks like the tracks of the entire New York City subway system. So don't try to duplicate that or let all the long-winded academic geeks overcomplicate you...LSO's type of chart is what LSO needs--it's a more academic, detailed book intended to cover every nuance of Objectivism. Yours is what the average person (and even the intellectual) needs: Your chart is a big picture outline with just enough detail. (I can see that you're a professional at knowing how to do visuals.) Don't make the mistake of adding a lot of crap. --Phil

Roger, your last post was merely a word salad. I do have to ham it to you, though, you're a real hot dog. The fecundity of your food puns surely burgers the mind. I don't know if I can meat the challenge, even though some of your allusions are very cheesy. Or hardly of 25 carrot quality. And I'm not chicken, but I'm afraid to contiinue lest it egg you on and scramble any more rational posts or turn this thread into spam. Keep milking this line of humor and I'm not cowed to say that I'll have a beef with you. And that's no bull.