Starbuckle

Rich Engle wrote: "I'm still waiting for a discussion of GLBT issues around here that has any contemporary nature, or use. And I'm a hetero, for Chrissakes." This is not a gay board.

Ted Keer wrote: "It's in the text of the joint eulogy for Rand given by Peikoff and Nathaniel, and the anecdote is a longstanding applause-getting staple of Barbara's and Joan's annual appearances at their ARI seminars...." This is fabricatory in the extreme. It is completely made up, a concoction. It's fiction. It is false. It is not true. There was no joint Leonard Peikoff/Nathaniel Branden eulogy, nor did Barbara Branden and Joan Blumenthal ever conjointly attend an ARI seminar. None of it happened, nor would any of the mentioned parties seriously attest that it did. The claims have no foundation. They are without referent or substantiation. They are not even plausible, given the history of schisms and insistence on permanent arch-enmity toward certain de-sanctioned personages adopted by the Peikovian flame-keepers. To make such assertions is to commit the big bad B, the epistemological wiper-outer, the Blank-out. For surely Keer has the MEANS to know that there was never any such joint eulogy, never any such joint appearances at ARI seminars. And yet, he says that there was. He makes that claim. He makes that claim.

Xray wrote: "What do you think about the future of Objectivism, whose founder insisted that one could not choose some elements of her philosophy and discard others? But why would that not be possible?" Why wouldn't it, indeed? In one discussion, Nathaniel Branden pointed out that simply because Rand implied thereby that she was infallible in sketching her philosophy doesn't mean that she was. In another place, he pointed out that the controversy over what one may call "Objectivism" is mere pedantry. Objectivism could be regarded as the "ideas of Ayn Rand" or it could be regarded as a general framework of reason and egoism in which other thinkers might operate. There are two questions here, first, what it means to properly interpret Rand's work and second, what it means to properly make one's own case for any proposition. If one is doing the latter, one doesn't normally have to preface one's argument with a declaration, "Oh by the way, I am speaking only for myself," although sometimes one might do that if the context might suggest that one is speaking as a representative of an organization, or there's a concern about litigation, or some such thing. This is why, whatever legitimate criticisms may have been made of the course taken by IOS/TOC/TAC, all the complaints that an IOS/TOC/TAC-published author was "misrepresenting Objectivism and/or Ayn Rand" whenever he made an argument that deviated in any respect from officially approved orthodox Objectivist works were so absurd. Nobody at IOS/TOC/TAC claimed to "speaking for" Objectivism-as-understood-by-Rand, although they sometimes proposed to interpret what Rand argued. When did Rand ever preface any work of hers with the warning, "I am speaking only for myself, not for Aristotle"? On the other hand, if one is writing a work that interprets Rand's work, that would be clear enough too. There would be quotations and paraphrases. Sentences that began, "Rand argued x, y, z, and so forth. This is what she called the conceptual common denominator. Now, in my view, the CCD is neither conceptual, nor common, nor denominative, because...." How hard is that? "Rand said this. But I say that." (Of course, any incompetent boob can mangle a presentation of Rand's ideas, and many have. Cf. most of the major reviews of Atlas Shrugged when it came out. It's the job of honest readers and critics to salvage things, and many have done that too.) So what does it mean to demand that an outfit promoting Rand's ideas and approach "limit themselves to preserving, teaching, and promoting the philosophy of Ayn Rand" and eschew everything non-AR-embalming? Why would it be necessary? There is no reason whatever (assuming no occluding and distortive Factor X) that one couldn't have, say, two main departments in an organization devoted to spreading Rand's ideas, one geared to merely publicizing Rand's work-as-is, the other to sponsoring and fostering scholarship and commentary influenced by Rand's work. But what one couldn't have is what BS seems to favor, students and scholars writing pseudo-independent-minded work, accepting academic training from ARI honchos about how reason is the only absolute, and so forth, under terms according to which students and scholars are obliged to stunt or pervert their mental understanding from the get-go in order to conform to a demand to do nothing beyond "preserving, teaching, and promoting the philosophy of Ayn Rand [and/or Peikoff and/or Harriman; cf. Campbell's citation in this thread of the testimony of a Harriman skeptic booted from ARI seminars for his trouble]." According to BS, Rand's ideas about reason, integrity and independence are so decrepit that only a chronic policy of blind obedience, self-betrayal and dependence will be adequate to the task of fulfilling an organization's mission of spreading the opposite of these; otherwise, Objectivism might sink beneath the intellectual seas for a thousand years, being as how dumb people are. But no writer's work would ever be "confused with Objectivism" and hence "give the wrong idea of Objectivism" if there were never any slightest suggestion that the writer "speaks for Objectivism." An organization promoting Randian or neo-Randian ideas might still end up severing relationships with associates deemed to have radically lost their way a la the rational-egoist mission, just as the Cato Institute would drop a contributing editor gone commie; but the mere fact of substantive disagreement with the muckamuck-in-chief who does not believe the substance of the disagreement to be even relevant would not be even marginally dispositive. But of course, Factor X—that is, Schwartzian-Binswangerian-Peikovian-style dogmatism—does indeed animate ARI's founders and managers. And not only with respect to ARI itself but also with respect to ANY OTHER organization or publication that dares discuss Rand's ideas, whether badly, well or both. That's why Andy Bernstein had to walk around in the desert in ashes and sackcloth for forty days and forty nights after making some small comment in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in defense of his own self, his mere ego. Could anybody, including BS, pretend that there was any confusion whatever about whether either the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies or any of its writers had been pretending to be "spokesman for Objectivism" or presenting any but their own views in their analyses of Rand's art and ideas? (Amusingly, Bernstein, in his maxima mea culpa, admitted that all that he had known about JOARS prior to his small contribution was that its editor, Chris Sciabarra, had contended in a book that Rand was a member of "the Hegelian" school. That's all!! That's ALL he knew about it!!!!) And who was it who called him out on this conspicuous despicableness? Who was it went to the special trouble of especially contacting Andrew Bernstein on this issue, to find out, you know, whether the scholar had any "explanation" for a comment in a scholarly journal? Well, you're ahead of me. Yes, it was Betsy Speicher! BS, the great new friend of the independent Objectivist as happy complement to the dependent Objectivist, who had no compunction about soliciting and relaying Bernstein's self-scourging sentiments to Objectiveland (reprinted at http://ariwatch.com/WhosWho.htm), including Bernstein's fatuous recommendation of a "complete repudiation and boycott of this journal and of any and all of Mr. Sciabarra’s work." (Just for the record, lest anybody confuse my view with that of anybody else, when I read JOARS I find that some articles are great, others so-so, and others crap; also that it has improved over the years. And let me just add that I would repudiate irrevocably anybody who irrevocably repudiates any and all of Sciabarra's work, and I would BOYCOTT them too...unless I wanted to read something they wrote in order to find out what they wrote...and only then would I NOT boycott them...irrevocably...but in all other cases I WOULD boycott them and IRREVOCABLY and FOREVER AND EVER...AND EVER.) BS may even have felt especially virtuous about her role in eliciting Bernstein's bit of self-abasing sycophancy, what a pivotal role she played in the drama. How does she feel about it now?

Shayne wrote: "Morally, one might considering judging Starbuckle for violating a kind of confidence. Betsy might justifiably be morally outraged at Starbuckle." I violated no confidence. I never agreed not to discuss her super-secret memo.

MSK wrote: "So stay tuned. This is in my task queue." You're announcing that you MIGHT censor me and that I should "stay tuned"?

GHS said "[kerfuffle = British invasion]"? The only reason I know the word kerfuffle is that it has been used so frequently by James Taranto of WSJ Best of the Web fame. I had thought that according to Peikoff, facts of any kind immediately implied values and the propriety of evaluation. If you refuse to evaluate when you should be evaluating, you're not a good valuer, or something. The strained agnosticism of the Noodlefood report seems to contradict this proclamation. The facts are in. Obviously they have enough to know that Peikoff is being wacko. And don't they also know that being wacko is bad? To be wacko is sort of like being irrational. Piekoff won't say anything further, so the pro-wacko faction are saying, "Well, we don't have all the relevant information, and we're probably never gonna GIT all the relevant information. And maybe if we did have all the information, the self-evident inference that Peikoff is being a wacko here would magically go away! Ergo, we can't make any judgment at all yet." Or: "Our knowledge of Peikoff tips the balance in his favor, since a man of his character would NEVER write that kind of memo to McCAskey WITHOUT some super-private, wrong-to-reveal personal context that magically justifies it!" The Noodlers don't go so far as the latter rationalization, but they do seem bound and determined to refrain from admitting that there is no reasonable conclusion but that Peikoff is being a wacko, perhaps even an asshole. The Noodlers' abbreviated historical "context," under the pretense of being comprehensive, is dishonest by omission. What they "add" to our knowledge of the bad treatment of McCaskey is trivial. The latest kerfuffle is nothing new or shocking from Peikoff or his cohorts in orthodoxy. In 1968, the orthodox were screaming that there MUST be some super-secret, wrong-to-reveal personal context that justified Ayn Rand's lengthy attack on the Brandens, notwithstanding the Brandens' point-by-point response to what she did choose to "reveal" in her denunciatory and self-destructive "explanation" in The Objectivist. In 1986, the super-secret context was revealed in Barbara Branden's Passion of Ayn Rand, and the orthodox remnant screamed that NO WAY could Rand have had a longtime love affair with the arch-evil Branden...not the woman THEY knew. This all instantly changed when Peikoff felt obliged to divulge that, yes, there did seem to be some kind of affair...and the new "obvious" conclusion became that Rand was only wronged in the whole business, never the one wronging others. Then of course there was the Kelley ouster, a few years after the bio, with the orthodox working 24-hour shifts at the strawman factory to prove that everything Kelley said in his writings about Objectivism and the movement meant the opposite of what it said; then the Reisman ouster a few years after that; then the book-length smear of the Brandens by that guy, whatsisface, etc., on and on. Peikoff was the wacko-in-chief back in 1968. It ain't nothing new. He has certainly lapsed into very persuasive simulations of sanity for quite long stretches. He is an intelligent man, often a fine writer and thinker, whatever his shortcomings. Too bad he's wacko, as well.

Dragonfly wrote: "That we often find causes for events doesn't mean that this always must be the case. That is the fallacy of induction. So your argument has already been derailed at this point, no need to read further..." I just knew, using my knowledge of reality, that Dragonfly was going to read further anyway, as subsequent posts attributed to Dragonfly confirm. (I also enjoy the comments on boards, or on news sites below political articles, that run something like "[Rapidfire unsupported assertion.] 'Nuff said." Sure, enough said from you, but the treatise writers could probably say a little more.) What would a "causeless event" be? What is an "event"? Isn't it some action or actions of an entity or entities, with specific natures, existing in a specific context with relationships to other entities that also are what they are? A causeless event sounds like magic, like the sort of thing we experience in dreams, which the solipsist suggests may be all that we (er, he, or her...I?) ever experience. But the causeless events in dreams are caused by whatever causes us to dream to begin with, and whatever then affects the course of the dream. Biology and the subconscious are often cited, as well as what happened the other day at work or with the in-laws, childhood traumas, etc.

I wrote: "When did Woody Allen molest a child?" Selene wrote: "His adopted daughter was close enough for me." The relationship between Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn/Farrow was publicized in 1992, when Soon-Yi was 22. (They are still married.)

GHS writes: "The Beatson's -- I recall hearing about them, but I don't think I ever met them." The cultural ignorance of the 60s, shared even by many who were adults during that era, is mind-boggling. The Beatsons were a very famous rock group from Britain that took the U.S. musical scene by storm. They were both very popular and very unpopular. For example, many young women would attend their concerts just to scream at them and drown out their music. The Beatsons were responsible for such tunes as "I Want to Hold Your Hand Insofar As Our Goals Are Mutually Compatible," "All You Need Is Love As a Response to Values," "Can't Buy Me Love Except Through Rational Trade," "Let It Be If It's the Metaphysically Given," and others.

Selene wrote: "Yes the humorous child molester [Woody Allen] had his moments." When did Woody Allen molest a child?

X-ray wrote: "For example, the clothes I'm wearing may be made by child labor, and I thus participate, indirectly, in the exploitation of the third world where capitalists only pay a pittance of wages to the people. Where is their freedom?" So what's the motive? Why are the children, and adults, laboring for a "pittance," if that's the case? Is it possible that they would be less well off if they did not take the job, i.e., if they were not being "exploited"? Or is the argument here that the factory owner is rounding people up at the point of a gun and marching them to the factory whether they wish to work for the pittance or not? Would the workers be better off if either (1) the factory owners and businessmen, to avoid the charge of "exploitation" or depriving everybody who works for them of freedom, closed up shop or (2) laws were passed to force the businessmen to raise wage rates far above the market rate, forcing businesses to leave the market and/or creating chronic unnecessary unemployment among those who most desperately need jobs, as is the result of minimum wage laws in the U.S. as well? It's also worth noting that prices are often much lower for comparable goods in economies where wages tend to be much lower. In other words, the same "pittance" that would not help somebody living in NYC to pay the bills might help somebody living in Surabaya to do so. If we want poorer economies to improve, nothing would it it faster than full, unregulated laissez faire, protected by an objective rule of law, so that capital could accumulate more rapidly, production and trade could expand massively, and labor would be worth more to those paying for it, with compensation being bid upward by competition for labor as the economy grows wealthier. Read Hazlitt first (Economics in One Lesson), then Mises (Human Action), Rothbard (Man, Economy, and State) and Reisman (Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics). It's a Marxist view of the world, no doubt not original with Marx, that the necessity of earning a living, of producing, in order to avoid starvation somehow implies that the very persons who most easily enable you to survive are thereby guilty of enslaving you. The doctrine is vicious because it equates voluntarily working to get a paycheck with being forced at the point of a gun to do so. What then makes actual enslavement worse than voluntarily engaging in the production and trade required to sustain your life? If they're both the same, it would be just as dispiriting to work at Wal-Mart as to be chained to a trireme and forced to row, row, row, even if you would dash into the woods at the next port if you found a way to get rid of the chains. But you can quit your job at Wal-Mart tomorrow. If having to work for a living implies that you are being enslaved, what would freedom consist of? Either (1) living in a magic fantasy dimension where everything you wish for appears automatically, with no effort required; or (2) living in the reality we're stuck with, but with others being enslaved to you--forced by you or by intermediaries at your behest to give you things belonging to them that they never agreed to give you.

Dragonfly wrote: "That's just wrong. If you define ice as the solid form of water, it follows logically that ice is a solid, even if ice wouldn't exist at all in the real world" So, by the same reasoning, if I define ice as the chocolate form of water, it follows logically that ice is a chocolate, even if a chocolate phase of water doesn't and can't exist at all in the real world, never has, never could? So...if I stipulate a definition for a concept that has no relationship to or basis in reality, it follows "logically" that my claim of a non-existent entity or attribute of an entity is "true," i.e., says something about reality, even though there is nothing in reality that the concept could be based on?

"Perigo the pedant can't even get his pseudo-old fashioned grammar right. 'Get thee to nunneries'? How sad." To nitpick or not to nitpick, that is the question. Perigo's fulmination is hypocritical, and not exactly edifying, but isn't the above complaint itself pedantic? So what if he didn't check the declension before he wrote his sentence; it's not pedantry per se to invoke a famous line, and what people remember from Shakespeare is "Get thee to a nunnery" not "Get you to a nunnery." Moreover, any writer could have been aware of the second person plural form and decided to use "thee" instead of "you" given the inextirpability of the word "thee" in our memory of that line, whilst also supposing that "nunneries" would be a less obtrusive tweak. "Nobody is going to crucify me for a minor breach in the observance," the writer might nod to himself as he decides bravely to stick to "thee." "After all, what I want is the Shakespearean resonance there. I'm not trying to win a pedantry contest, am I? No, I am not!" As long as we're being pedantic, what's "pseudo" about the "old-fashioned grammar"? So, "thee" is not old-fashioned? It's in current usage? Sounds like a false "pseudo" to me. We're not all Quakers here, I hope. Finally, even if it is a slip, what's so "sad" about it? I'm sure it's a dark tragedy that people are fallible, including in posts on discussion boards. But I hope nobody is cataloguing my own typos and solecisms for posterity to weep over.

"At root, Ellen seems to doubt that any human being can be such a titan, whether locked in by disability or not." Wow.

Robert Campbell wrote: "I share your suspicion that Ms. Speicher would have an excuse ready at hand for the rewriting." That may be true but is not what I am suggesting. Based on what she says in her recent post, even if she would offer no excuse for the rewriting--i.e., even if BS agreed that us that it willfully distorts Rand and should not have been done--BS would likely conclude that this dereliction of duty is also no reason to withdraw support from ARI. What would regard as a good reason to finally step abetting all this kind of thing? I guess if Peikoff and the other principals were caught shouting from the rooftops, over and over, "We renounce Rand and Objectivism and accept Kant and subjectivist whim worship, and hope that Obama succeeds in destroying all freedom!," that might do it. It would have to be videotaped and the video would have to be available on YouTube.

Robert Campbell said, "I take it, then, that Betsy Speicher hasn't addressed [etc.]" Everything she "addressed" in her post is supplied in my post about what she "addressed" in her post. No doubt she's aware of and accepts as the price of supporting ARI the mangling of Rand's words by ARI/Peikoff-approved editors, or if she is not currently aware of it would upon being adequately informed of the mangling accept it as the price of supporting ARI, given what she claims is ARI's net value. I think that Speicher's argument itself is proof of the untenability of her conclusion that the intellect-curdling and ego-curdling effects of toeing the orthodox line are outweighed by the purported benefits of doing so. She is as intellectually honest as she can be in her covert memo, conceding the truth of all of Tracinski's reporting (which, of course, does not recount as much as it should), but then ends on, "So what? Intellectual independence and integrity are important but ain't all THAT important...not when it comes to the net social benefits of ARI's work, even given how on my own view it has radically compromised its proper mission! Sacrifice yourself to the common good, people! Get with the program!" Maybe some of the kids introduced to The Fountainhead by the ARI contest will grow up to be great individualistic geniuses in their fields. There is no way to know whether this doing-good-despite-itself kind of outcome will in the long run render historically marginal all the harm those submitting to ARI/Peikoff do to themselves here and now. But since when is one's own individual good here and now properly compromised in light of the alleged social benefits of such self-compromising? And anyway, would there be no way for people with money to distribute copies of The Fountainhead if ARI were shuttered? It seems that BS's piece is the very best she can do to champion a cause that she believes in...well, sort-of believes in. I think Randians cite Rand's characters a bit too much to make ethical-psychological points, but geez, when would Roark ever have said, "Okay, okay, you're right about the prospective social benefits, I'll stay on the project, go ahead and mangle the facade as long as you keep the common-good-serving structural part of the design intact!" Tracinski is right, blow up this Cortlandt. But thoroughly.

Since Betsy Speicher does not want her statement on Robert Tracinski's "Anthemgate" to be published or forwarded without her permission, I'll just paraphrase it, as closely as I can so that it can be subject to the public analysis and criticism that she was hoping to avoid in the name of promoting rational discourse. In her first paragraph she says something on the order of how Robert Tracinski is an extraordinary journalist who always sticks to the facts and that his recently published controversial article is no exception. Then she supplies the link to his article criticizing Piekoff: http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=1234 Speicher then says that most of what Tracinski cites are matters she has known about for years. That what he has done, in making them public for the first time, is provide links to original sources and a context which makes them understandable. She urges concerned Objectivists to read Tracinski's article and the links he provides. She says that while she agrees with the facts Tracinski presents, she seriously disagrees with some of the major conclusions he draws from them. She says that her biggest disagreement is with the subtitle "The Objectivist Movement Commits Suicide." That although there have been recent controversies among Objectivists and some of them may be harmful, she doesn't think Objectivism as a philosophical movement or ARI as an institution has been fatally, or even seriously, wounded. And that it would not be a good thing if it were. She says that while ARI and its activities are not the ONLY way to spread Objectivism, she believes that it is definitely a major and necessary institution. That it represents a gathering of money and talent that can accomplish worthy goals on a scale that individuals and small groups cannot possibly do. She asks whether anything less than ARI could spread Objectivism as effectively as ARI's essay contests, free books to teachers, OAC, media department, and its support of campus clubs and scholars. She asks whether ARI stifles creativity and intellectual independence as Tracinski claims and answers that in a way, it does -- and that this is a "GOOD thing." [Oh dear.] She says that ARI's mission is -- or should be -- to preserve, teach, and promote Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. And that to preserve Ayn Rand's legacy, ARI has to LIMIT themselves to the philosophy and ideas she ACTUALLY supported and not teach or promote anything else or in addition to that, no matter how true, worthy, or consistent it is with Objectivism. [They should limit themselves to ads and photocopying?] She adds that if someone was inspired by Ayn Rand and, using methods that conformed to her epistemology, discovered a cure for cancer, that would be wonderful, but it should not be taught or promoted with ARI resources. She says that those accepting ARI's support should conform to ARI's mission in the same way people working for a large corporation should support the company's goals as set out by upper management. [sigh.] She says that this is necessary and proper for the corporation -- or for ARI -- to do its job. That a young person just starting out may join a corporation to learn the business or he may become an OAC student to learn Objectivism. That both thereby acquire support, education, and guidance and that is very important in the beginning. That after a while, the young employee may seek new opportunities or want to work in a new direction incompatible with the corporation's goals, so he will leave the company to work elsewhere or to start his own business. In likewise manner, she concludes, an OAC student may eventually have an independent career in academia, do research and writing in areas of his personal interest, and/or expand or use Ayn Rand's ideas in ways that are outside the scope of ARI's concerns. And that this "is fine too." She says she thinks ARI got into trouble when they DID NOT limit themselves to preserving, teaching, and promoting the philosophy of Ayn Rand and began teaching and promoting ideas that Ayn Rand did not advocate and never endorsed. That these include Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis and Peikoff's lectures and Harriman's book on induction. That these may be worthy and ground-breaking, but they are NOT Objectivism and should not be treated as such. [Me: what difference does it make whether they are "treated as Objectivism" or not? As long as the author doesn't claim "these are the thoughts that were in Ayn Rand's head, and I'm merely transcribing them" (as Peikoff did in his book on Objectivism)?] She asserts that if these new ideas should prove false or incompatible with Ayn Rand's, presenting them as "Objectivist" could harm the spread of Ayn Rand's actual ideas in the same way that the medieval Scholastics' co-opting and misrepresenting Aristotle harmed Aristotle's reputation. [Oh dear. If only we had means of communication and debate that were unavailable to the medievals.] Speicher says that ARI's decision to include and support these new ideas along with Ayn Rand's was a mistake. [she says nothing about their dogmatic approach, its manifestations or genesis, and whether the "mistake" of fostering the development of non-Rand ideas would have been a mistake without the dogmatism.] She says that perhaps it was a mistake the board members were aware of, did not want to make, but did not have much choice about. She observes that Leonard Peikoff advanced and promoted these ideas and HE considered them part of Objectivism and refers to Peikoff's web site (http://tinyurl.com/2c96lye), where he writes that his lectures on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" "present, for the first time, the OBJECTIVIST solution to the problem of induction..." She writes that Leonard Peikoff's views cannot be ignored or dismissed. [No matter how loony or unintelligible they get, presumably.] That in addition to the respect he deserves based on his enormous contributions to Objectivism [only the Rand-approved portion of Peikoff?], HE CONTROLS THE ACCESS TO, AND USE OF, AYN RAND'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE USE OF HER NAME. [Emphasis mine. Gee, no wonder his views can't be ignored.] That ARI cannot even call itself the "Ayn Rand" Institute without Peikoff's permission. That, thus, when Peikoff reminded Arline Mann "I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism," she doesn't regard it as simply an appeal to authority but as a reminder that without Peikoff's approval and consent, ARI could not function at all. [Golly, isn't it obviously BOTH?] According to Speicher, if she were a board member faced with the choice to support Peikoff's ideas as a part of Objectivism or to accede to his demands, she might find it necessary to accommodate him even if she did not agree [intellectual honesty and independence having been demoted as virtues]. She might consider it one of those things, like complying with government regulations, that one has to do to stay in business and continue to do genuinely important and valuable things. [Peikoff as government bureaucrat whom one must obey. Because obeying his dictates "advances Objectivism," whatever THAT is. Okay.] Speicher says that the bottom line is that the current controversy is not a good thing, but it is not fatal or suicidal. In her view, ARI, despite its support for ideas that she does not consider properly "Objectivist" [in the sense of being Ayn Rand's ideas or Ayn-Rand-approved ideas] offers too much of genuine value to her and to kindred Objectivists, to abandon it now. She expects that enough Objectivists will agree and continue to support the good work of ARI -- as well as the work of independent Objectivists, like Robert Tracinski, John McCaskey, and others, who may challenge or disagree with some of ARI's positions and actions. [so both the dependent, self-abnegating Objectivists and independent Objectivists can BOTH thrive! We can all get along! At least until the next undeconstructable loony Peikovian dictat! Woo hoo!] The end. [There's a giant equivocation in all this. If BS thinks it would be good to have an organization that does nothing but publicize Rand's work, and if ARI can't do anything beyond that without becoming destructively dogmatic thanks to Peikoff's irrational rule, a view that has been argued on this board, fine. (I think it should just dissolve and hire a publicist to promote Rand's work given its irremediable dogmatism, but that it's certainly possible for an organization to foster discussion and application of rational-egoist-individualist work without the dogmatism. There are schools and journals and things. All one would have to do is steer clear of this notion that it's so important to equate the term "Objectivist" with "printout of what's in AR's mind" [she's dead, by the way], obey the stifling nonsensical dictats of authority figures like Peikoff, etc.) But BS is also arguing that ARI should be preserved and supported even though it has gone far beyond this mission and by her own admission requires "young" (and not-so-young) thinkers and scholars to subordinate their intellectual understanding and public statements to ARIan rule. [Ergo, in her view, being dependent-minded and irrational is completely consistent with the values of promoting independent-mindedness and rationality (albeit perhaps not actually BEING independent-minded and rational). Is that the implication of a philosophy of rational individualism, let alone law-of-identity-ism? BS thinks the great danger is that the world will get the wrong view of Rand's ideas. Um, people have been getting the wrong view of philosophers' ideas since Thales argued that the basic stuff of reality is green cheese. Let's pray Rand doesn't go out of print and then comes back to the West via bin-Laden-approved Islamic mis-translation! No, the not-so-great and waning danger is that obsequious yes men in the name of a philosophy of rational individualism will be forever teaching other allegedly independent-minded rational men to be obsequious yes-men and touting this as consistent with the idea of being independent-minded and rational. [i agree with BS that "ARI stifles creativity and intellectual independence." I don't agree that this is so swell when she says it's swell, though I agree with her that it's not-swell when she implies that it's not-swell. Well. I would add that BS, who makes a gigantic concession and then stifles the obvious conclusion, is a fellow stifler, and I suspect that her way of publishing but not-publishing her BS will not be a successful way of deluding the select recipients and those to whom they whisper confidential information into believing that acceding to the process of turning alleged champions of independent thought into regimented drones is acceptable, despite the problems with it, so long as the alleged "benefits" of being a hypocritical drone exceed the Rand-documented costs. Gee, it's stifling in here. Somebody open the window.]

"I have a strong distaste for sanctimonious effusions of vanity parading about as intelligent discourse. I prefer to lampoon that stuff rather than get nasty like the sanctimonious folks do." If you could supply a list of which of your posts are lampoons of sanctimonious effusions and which are sanctimonious effusions, that would be helpful.

What is morally sterile about Galt's Gulch?

Because of many misinterpretations and miscommunications regarding his role in the recent resignation of John McCaskey from the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, which Leonard Peikoff founded, Dr. Peikoff recently agreed to an interview to help clear the air. This is his first public interview on the subject. AN INTERVIEW WITH LEONARD PEIKOFF ON M, DH AND LP Q. Thank you for being with us. A. You're rationally welcome. Thank you for having me. Q. Er, you're rationally welcome too. Now, with regard to John McCaskey-- A. Yes. Yes. Now, may I just make a preliminary statement? Q. Oh, of course. By all means. A. I do not want to argue what I regard as facts. I do not want to grapple with or hassle about plain facts qua plain facts. I just want to announce them, point to them, take them as given for all to acknowledge who will acknowledge. Let them acknowledge these facts or be damned. Q. Okay. A. A is A. Entities exist. There are stars, planets, atmosphere, vegetation, the animal kingdom and human beings. Q. Okay. Let's take that as our context. A. Let me be the one to establish the context here. I have been already laying out the context in my role of the person being interviewed. I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism. Q. Oh of course, I didn't mean to-- A. There are people and things. And they all have a NATURE. They are what they ARE. Do you follow me so far? Bar? Car? Jar? Star? Tar? Q. Yes. A. I founded the Ayn Rand Institute. I withdrew from daily operations after a while because I'm not really an administrator by nature or choice, but I founded it. I'm the big boss, the big wig, the progenitor, the creator, whatever you want to call it. That is essential to the context I want to establish at the outset, so that your readers can understand what is at stake here. I am Ayn Rand's heir and I was stepped over. I was stepped over. It wasn't the way I wanted it. I'm smart. I can handle things. Q. Okay. A. Do you have a question for me or not? Q. Okay, so you, um, you founded the Institute, right? A. Right. Q. So then what happened, Dr. Peikoff? A. Purpose of which is to spread the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which I know better than anybody else by Miss Rand's own statement. You've read my books, I hope. You do know who I am? Q. Of course. You are the most wonderfulest expositor of Objectivism in the whole wide world. A. Aw, shucks. I don't know about that. But at least I'm not as dumb as all the others and at least I am loyal to the grandeur that was and is Ayn Rand and her vision. But let me finish setting the context here, because I don't want any of your readers to have any excuse to pretend to be still confused over the issue. Once I have finished speaking, that should be the end of it, once and for all, for ever and ever. End of all the confusion and end of all the kind of mealy-mouthed babbling by the rampant subjectivist-intrinsicist-pseudo-Objectivist axis. End of pseudo-"honest" debate over whether people can "honestly debate" an invulnerable intellectual edifice that has now been definitively set forth, without blemish, without regret. On the only basis there ever was or could be for any valid induction: THE FACTS OF REALITY. Q. Once and for all? A. Right. Q. Okay. Go ahead, Dr. Peikoff. A. I may proceed? Q. Please proceed. A. Let me lay it out for you. This person whom I will call "M," which stands for "John McCaskey," was on the board of ARI, the Ayn Rand Institute, and he was involved in some kind of private sessions, discussion sessions, talking about the book that "DH," Dave Harriman, wrote under my guidance and sponsorship, the book TLL: IIP, a.k.a., also known as, The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics. This book gives the DAAIFAOP, Definitive Answer About Induction From An Objectivist Perspective. Q. Criticized the book. This M character did? A. What are you, Yoda? Yes. Criticized it. In these private sessions convened to talk about the book. Q. What an asshole! Doesn't he know who you are, your intellectual status in Objectivism? I gather this criticism didn't involve mere typographical corrections or something of that sort? A. I have seen a large part of this criticism myself, and have heard its overall tenor and content from others who attended a forum on the subject. I do not know where else he has voiced these conclusions, but size to me is irrelevant in this context. I don't have any kind of fetish about size. His disagreements are not limited to details, but go to the heart of the philosophic principles at issue. And now that he's been booted out of the Institute in direct moral consequence of his own action, he's slathering the Amazon.com comments section with this swill. Which confirms everything I've been saying, how he's criticized the book, it's not just my fantasy, it's right there in the reader reviews at Amazon. Public criticisms of the book. Q. And what are the philosophical principles that his criticism goes to the heart of? What were M's mistakes in criticizing the book? How specifically does he manifest his bad faith and intellectual dishonesty? A. Your shoelace is untied. Q. Huh? Uh... A. Look, a bird! Q. Huh? Uh... A. In essence, at the core, what the thing is in itself, beneath all the grubby journalistic details, his behavior amounts to: LP (that's me, Leonard Peikoff) is misguided, DH is misguided, M knows Objectivism better than either. Or else: Objectivism on these issues is inadequate, and M is the one pointing the flaws out. I hope you understand how arch-evil and malevolent this kind of behavior amounts to. Maybe it's not QUITE as bad as going around axe-murdering and child-molesting, but it's close. Q. What kind of criticisms did M make of TLL: IIP, and how would you respond to them? A. Your other shoelace is untied! Q. Uh... A. Let me just wrap this up and then there will be no excuse for "confusion." When a great book sponsored by the Institute and championed by me--I hope you still know who I am and what my intellectual status is in Objectivism--is denounced by a member of the board of the Institute, which I founded, someone has to go. So that's what I told that lady from ARI who left two messages on my answering machine, one was enough, didn't she know who I am, but okay, she left two, it's okay, I wasn't home, it gave me a chance to write a memo for the record explaining that someone had to go, someone would go. Granted, M brought in contributions, arranged college appointments, whatever, great, but Objectivism is not pragmatism. We are talking about a scumbag who tendered criticisms of DH's book, a book that I sponsored and that applies my ideas, during sessions convened to discuss it. Criticisms! Blatant criticisms. During sessions! Now, endorsements, yes, I could have understood. "Hallelujah!" "Glory be!" "Objective of the Objective!" and whatnot, fine, I could have accepted that kind of response. But criticisms? It's based on my own theory of induction! My own fucking theory. That book is collaborative. I hope you understand who I am, my intellectual status in Objectivism. Q. Uh...okay. Anything you want to add to or, um, subtract from what you have said? A. Subtract? Q. Let me withdraw that verb. I momentarily slipped into a state of malevolent non-objectivity. Anything to add? A. No. I hope now that I have elaborated the deadly nature of the venom of this guy, and his denunciation of a great book, offering criticisms and whatnot, totally out of bounds. Q. Alrighty then. * * *

Peikoff refutes himself: http://www.peikoff.com/2010/10/04/can-two-objectivists-disagree-about-a-particular-point-without-one-of-them-being-cast-out-of-objectivist-society/

Robert Campbell writes: "The passage I put in bold succinctly explains why we need experiments (and other structured empirical investigations) in applied psychology." What would the experiments be? Therapy? How could you have a study of this that controls for many different individual factors? Or would studies of applied psychology be focusing only on less-complicated, shorter-range stuff? If a psychologist writes a book based on his considered assessment of years of therapy with patients, encountering different problems and trying different things, does that count as a study of applied psychology?

"Since you are bent on taking me to task about Tracinski, I presume you also disagree with my observation: 'I believe he is making the world a better place.' " ?

"You know what Glenn Beck had that Tracinski didn't? Beck decided to ask some simple questions like 'How did we get here?' and 'Who are we?' Then he sought out the answers. "Tracinski, being an Objectivist, thought he already knew. After all, he's an expert in Objectivism and Rand gave the causes. Who needs to look with fresh eyes anymore?... Thus Tracinski can say, with wonder, that the left '... has proven to be more committed and destructive than even I expected.' This is the danger of getting embroiled in O-Land crap. You take you mind off of reality and put it on vanity issues." This is absurd. I fault Tracinski for failure to admit cleanly his earlier obtuseness with regard to Objectivist orthodoxy, especially his treatment of David Kelley. But how can you admit you haven't read much of Tracinski and then claim he's wearing blinders journalistically, mired in Ob-rationalism? I've read many of his newsletter installments over the past few years, and find him very grounded and observant. His day-to-day blogging and grappling with current events is what has helped pull him away from the orthodoxy. As for being shocked anew at the viciousness of the left and determination/ability of the left to destroy--gee, there's a sin. Looking even very closely at the Clinton years, one might be excused for thinking that there were political limits to what the left could do. But Obama's fuck-the-political-consequences approach to socializing health care has proven again that the wrong man at the right moment can be very effective in assailing our rights. The Tea Party movement may still pull the fat out of the fire, of course, and Tracinski has written plenty about that too. Perhaps the author of the post, before assuming that Tracinski has not "looked with fresh eyes" at any of what's going on around him, should "look with fresh eyes" at Tracinski's actual work.

Michael wrote: "...her ITOE style...includes an overdose of the passive voice." For example?