PDS

MSK: your link to the lecture is broken. Looks interesting.

JDL: I look forward to your comments and insights. I too took a hiatus from Movement Objectivism after the Kelley split, until about 6-8 months ago. I was quite surprised to see the same old crap and grudges being hashed about, but at a faster pace because of the Internet. As I have said elsewhere, Ayn Rand deserves better.

McCaskey has been strangely silent on the latest series of events. Wouldn't it be interesting if he took his $$$ and tried to develop an Objectivist Third Way?

Dr. Piekoff has a Phd. He does podcasts. Way back on January 7,2007, he made a podcast in response to the following question: "Q: What is your opinion of the Objectivist clubs and advocacy groups on the Internet? Your opinion, I know, would vary depending on the policies of any particular group. But all things being equal, do you consider this an effective and rational way to spread the right ideas?" His response, summarized by our own host here at Objectivist Living, was as follows: (emphasis mine). Slightly ironic, no? In addition to the undisguised rage and "personal emnity" inherent Peikoff's latest missive in Anthemgate, what is most clear about Peikoff circa 2011 is, to use a phrase, the "immortalized ...chaos of [his] own mind." Lest we forget, the missive quoted was an attempted kick-save, i.e., an attempt to explain the absurd email that got this whole boondoggle started. The lack of anything even approaching benevolence is perhaps the most startling thing about Peikoff's communications of recent years. Peikoff 2011 has, more or less, become Objectivism's Cranky Old Man. We have all met such persons before. They sometimes have redeeming charms, like tobacco stains or war stories. I'm sure Peikoff has his charms too, although Unfortunately, Peikoff is a Cranky Old Man with a podcast, who doesn't follow his own advice, and the face of Movement Objectivism. Because I do take stock in Rand's benevolent universe premise, I actually feel sorry for the Movement Objectivists--all those other Phd's with Podcasts and the like, some of whom are my friends. In many ways, however, they are akin to the Iranian children and other innocents Peikoff so blithely disregards when he claims Iran should be wiped off the map: they are the victims of friendly fire, on steroids. Slightly ironic, no?

Robert: it sounds like Saul should change his name to Paul. He has seen the light.

Let me suggest a distinction that doesn't use the terminology of political labels. I was reminded of this when I read Peikoff's latest salvo in the McCaskey situation. One of the more psychologically interesting lines in his letter was his dismissive reference to a magazine founder and a "Phd with a podcast", i.e., Biddle and Hsieh. Think about that for a second. Here are two people who--whether anybody here likes it or not--have been long-time Ortho O's. DH in particular has been a strong supporter of Peikoff. Hell, I got banned from her site for a pun that made more or less fun of Peikoff. Notwithstanding this, Peikoff clearly had no hesitation in reducing Biddle and Hsieh--people who have more or less devoted their lives to the Objectivist movement--to the ash heap of Objectivism. Such actions, made in connection with long-time insiders/supporters--reveals that Peikoff is not particularly concerned with "Movement Objectivism"--whether in the academy or in the popular culture or in politics. I think the differences you are referring can be reduced to the question of whether, in response to such controversies, any given Objectivist (1) is interested in spreading Objectivism as a movement ("let's take over the philosophy departments at our universitys...") or, (2)protecting/worshipping/defending the legacy of Ayn Rand at all costs. In this context, I believe this can be reduced to a "sense of life" primary, more or less. I can't claim that this explains all of the differences among O's, but it explains the reaction that many O's have to controversies generated when, for instance, Peikoff goes into his "bombs away!" mode.

You're going to need and deserve more than popcorn.

More entrails for the entrail-readers to grope. Full text: PEIKOFF VS. AN ARI BOARD MEMBER November 05, 2010 (The context of undisputed facts in this issue is not repeated here.) 1. Dante’s phrase does not necessarily imply moral criticism, as Ayn Rand (who often used it) understood. It is merely an eloquent way of saying that in certain extremely negative situations—whether pertaining to poor behavior, poor penmanship, or a poor manicure —there is also a positive element, but that it is not enough to diminish the negative essence. 2. Since I was writing an extemporaneous, private email to two people with the same context of knowledge as mine, not a statement for the general public, I did not aim for objectivity by means of a running philosophic commentary replete with definitions, step-by-step proofs, and answers to possible objections. But when McCaskey asked me to allow him to make my unedited letter public, I had to agree, because I did not want to give him the opportunity to charge that I was engaged in a cover-up. 3. Because some people have turned the dispute into a moral issue, I should state the full truth, which is not stated in the letter: I have, for years, long before Harriman’s book, condemned McCaskey morally: I regard him as an obnoxious braggart as a person, and a pretentious ignoramus as an intellectual. Had I held a more positive estimate, I would have attempted first of all not to demand his resignation, but to discuss the book with him, understand his viewpoint, and see if together we could resolve and/or delimit his problems with it. But given my opinion of him, intellectual discussion was impossible to me. 4. Despite my view of McCaskey, I never expressed it publicly; it is not my goal to broadcast moral assessments without reason, or to issue blessing or excommunication to self-proclaimed Objectivists. But my goal is to judge the qualifications of those given leading positions of authority in running the Institute, and thus of power in guiding the course of the movement. My concern with this goal does not imply a lack of confidence in Yaron, who has done a splendid job. But the latter does not imply that he and I always agree on suitable Board members. Ultimately, someone has to decide who is qualified to hold such positions and where the line is to be drawn. An organization devoted to spreading an ideology is not compatible with “freedom” for its leadership to contradict or undermine that ideology. In theory. the best judge of such contradiction would be the person(s) , if he exists, who best understands and upholds the ideology, as evidenced objectively by his lifelong intellectual consistency, philosophic attainments, and practical results. In practice, the best judge would be the person, if he is still alive, who founded the organization and defined its purpose, in this case as a step in carrying out a mandate given him by Ayn Rand. On both counts, only one individual qualifies: me. (I have retired from books, classes, and official position, but not from perception and evaluation.) McCaskey is free to advocate in any medium whatever he wishes and even to regard himself as an Objectivist, which indeed he may in some form be, for all I know; I have no interest in finding out. My interest is not to ferret out disagreements with Ayn Rand, but to strip them of the imprimatur of the Institute, and thus to diminish the practical consequences of such viewpoints. In other words, my role in this connection is to remove from the existential center of the movement any influence which I evaluate as harmful in practice to the spread of Objectivism. To sneer in a public setting at an epochal Objectivist book qualifies, in my judgment, as harm. When McCaskey was appointed to the Board, I said nothing, just as I have not objected to the fact that a few longtime Board members and I are on terms of personal enmity, and do not speak to each other. In all these cases my personal dislike was irrelevant. It is only when I perceived harm in practice that I have taken action. And I have set the requirements for such action high. In the 25 years of ARI’s existence, I have vetoed only two individuals prior to McCaskey. If any of you believe that this makes me a dictatorial opponent of independence or free speech, then God help you, because reality obviously hasn’t. And if, as seems possible, my detractors in this issue represent a sizable faction within the Objectivist movement whose spokesmen include magazine founders and PhDs with podcasts– then God help Objectivism, too. P.S. Ayn Rand would not have sought to defend herself against a similar attack. She would have regarded such an attack as contemptible, and an answer to it on her part as a moral sanction of the attackers, implying as it does that their charges are worthy of consideration. I am not as strong as she was. That smell in your nostrils is the Objectivist movement going up in smoke. I wish I were wrong, but this might be the best for everybody, and Objectivism as well.

Guess who wrote the following: "If any of you believe that this makes me a dictatorial opponent of independence or free speech, then God help you, because reality obviously hasn’t. And if, as seems possible, my detractors in this issue represent a sizable faction within the Objectivist movement whose spokesmen include magazine founders and PhDs with podcasts– then God help Objectivism, too." Yes, you guessed it: Leonard "I Closed the System Before I Opened It," Peikoff. November 5, 2010. [see here http://www.peikoff.com/peikoff-vs-an-ari-board-member/ ]. Here is what he says about LL and McCaskey's book review: "To sneer in a public setting at an epochal Objectivist book qualifies, in my judgment, as harm." And to think that I had always considered Atlas Shrugged to be an epochal Objectivist book...

Well, yes, you can sue for damages over anything, so let them. But in what would they be claiming property here? What of value is being sold or offered, and in what way does sharing this information diminish its value? This seems far, far less like stealing the secret formula to Coca Cola and more like listening in on the church advising its bishops how to deflect questions about child abuse. Adam says above that it is a federal crime to "endeavor to knowingly disclose illegally intercepted information." I am not sure of his source, and am not sure how "information" is defined here. The issue of wiretap is easily dealt with by publishing a transcription, rather than a recording, is it not? How does this gibe with the press revealing the content of Newt Gingrich's "overheard" phone conversations? If this were some course with some intellectual content being copyrighted and offered for sale, that would be one thing. But this is an ad hoc and ex cathedra religious argument as to why true believers should consent to the defamation of John McCaskey. How, for instance, would the courts look at the publication of a transcript of a meeting of Scientologists held to discuss a strategy for ostracizing the ex wives of Tom Cruise? I reject any arguments based on the defamers' supposed moral rights here. We're not talking about secret information. We're talking about claims on the part of defamers to hide behind supposed rights to privacy and intentional strategies to damage known and yet to be identified Enemies of Objectivism. Who has been defamed? How do we know there has been a defamation? To me, this is as simple as "two wrongs don't make a right." If property rights matter, I see no reason why they don't matter here. Nobody is on a desert island, in a plane crash in the Andes, or in any other setting where the ethics of emergencies and concomitant disregard of property rights might apply. As for your other comments, and being mindful that it is highly annoying to others when lawyers opine on topics in settings such as this (the Argument from Authority is always seemingly one notch removed from the conversation) I would just say: proceed at your own risk.

As a legal matter, it is generally not a good idea to voluntarily come into possession of communications, documents, or recordings that the recipient is aware of as being confidential and/or protected by contract. Even if the underlying recording was legally made--many states require only that one participant to the conversation consent to the recording (i.e., the person doing the recording)--an awareness of an underlying confidentiality agreement might expose the recipient to the claim of having tortuously interfered with contract and/or business expectancies (here, the contract between OAC student Jones and the ARI/OAC outfit). This is a common law tort in just about every jurisdiction in the USA. By way of analogy, if Starbuckle comes into possession of the trade secrets of his competitor, and is aware of the confidentiality of those secrets (because of contractual protections or otherwise), he can be exposed legally by maintaining possession of those trade secrets. Food for thought. I am nobody's lawyer on this forum, yada, yada, yada, so take it for what its worth. As a moral matter, this seems pretty close to a slam dunk: just because an OAC student violates the property rights of the ARI/OAC, this doesn't give others a moral license to do so as well, even if the curious would-be listener is once removed from the underlying property rights violation.

Doubtful. I can't imagine Kimmler and any potential payor reaching terms on the correct amount for such services.

That actually sounds as if it were written by the advocates of a philosophy of reason. What’s next? Yaron Brook interviewing Chris Sciabarra for ARI’s IMPACT newsletter? I suppose it’s possible that the participants in this project could suffer the consequences of such recalcitrant behavior. We shall see. In case you were wondering, the book is not available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore. Darryl Wright has a first-class mind. If he ever gets the boot from ARI, they are all in trouble. Or, to be precise, more trouble.

???? !!!! ???? What do you have against Eddie Willers? Was he eager to diminish? Interested in spittle exchanges or speculations about people's drinking habits? In what way was Eddie Willers less than the Roarks and Ayn Rand and the Dagnys? I thought he was Rand's example of a moral, conscientious, loyal man of lesser ability. Now he's the label for tearing down others? ???? !!!! ???? Startled and dismayed, REB I have nothing against Eddie Willers. Let's just say he was more middle of the pack than front of the pack. That's my point. I hope they change the ending of the final film of this trilogy and let Eddie into Galts gulch. No you don't. Based on my review of most of your comments, you are too bored to care about such things.

However, Peikoff, according to Valliant, later said that Eloise was upset, feeling that she had been misquoted. Valliant said Eloise was "hopping mad." How does he know this? I'll mention that Valliant implied that 100 Voices was going to support PARC. I haven't finished reading it, but I don't get that impression thus far. -Neil Parille Keep it up Neil aka Javert: the fate of the world may just ride on these important issues.

Who gives a crap of "what we've been told"? Quit worrying about it. Go build a skyscraper or something.

???? !!!! ???? What do you have against Eddie Willers? Was he eager to diminish? Interested in spittle exchanges or speculations about people's drinking habits? In what way was Eddie Willers less than the Roarks and Ayn Rand and the Dagnys? I thought he was Rand's example of a moral, conscientious, loyal man of lesser ability. Now he's the label for tearing down others? ???? !!!! ???? Startled and dismayed, REB I have nothing against Eddie Willers. Let's just say he was more middle of the pack than front of the pack. That's my point.

I have not detected the hostility that Jerry B. seems worried about. What I have detected is an eagerness to diminish--in advance--an effort that deserves no less than a presumption of goodwill, and an effort that requires far more effort than hitting the send button on one's keyboard. The only reason this inclination to diminish is of any note is it betrays something about what the Objectivist movement today has arguably become, i.e., something less about the Roarks and Ayn Rand and the Dagnys, and something much more related to spittle exchanges about theories of induction, and whether Frank O'Conner drank two or three or-- horror or horrors!--four fingers of Scotch each day. Perhaps we should start calling Objectivism something more apt: "EddieWillerism".

Horror or horrors!!: "No discussion (one way or another) of Frank's drinking." How is this possible? Doesn't everybody know this issue is of Monumental Metaphysical Importance? Neil: why does this issue seem to obsess you so?

Easy. Employer holds the cards. They agree to disagree on the particular issue and employee gets a new job.

I have put up several comments on Noodlefood threads concerning the McCaskey/Harriman/Biddle whoopup . . . and none have been deleted. This is surprising, since she had earlier consigned me to the Inner Circle Of Heck because of my satirical comments back when she got snuggly with Perigo.** I believe Diana has moved on somewhat since her titanic 14,000 word denunciation of Chris Sciabarra. If you watch/listen to her inaugural Videoblog, she seems to be honestly reaching for a durable set of principles by which Objectivists can wisely manage disagreements. I guess it is because the present whoopup simply cannot be contained, cannot be curbed, cannot be stifled -- and she very much wants to SAY SOMETHING STRONG (have a listen to the concluding remarks concerning the whoopup at around 47:30). ++++++++++++++++++ ** "At the moment she has got herself in a stew of quite amusing contradictions over at SOLOPassionofbitchingaboutBarbaraBranden, where her toadies gush and Valliant and his demented wife continue to examine the sheets of Ayn Rand's 1968 bed for stains of evil. La Mertz finds herself an able match in the quick-witted Shayne Wissler, but cannot acknowledge this because she has only the one eye in the middle of her forehead -- the one and only eye in the kingdom that Sees all, Knows All. I'll tell ya, if she ran for meter-maid in my town, I would move to Costa Rica in fear she would take power and start killing people. As it is, she has her universe, her castle, her king, her fellow maniacs and enough rectitude to fill the Bay of Fundy." I just tried to slog through that 14,000 word piece and had to give up, after about 1-2,000 words. All I could think of was, "you've gotta be shitting me..." Imagine today's 16 year old encountering Howard Roark on the pages of The Fountainhead for the first time and subsequently finding out that the philosophy of Roark leads to the likes of that...therein is the damage done by the likes of Peikoff back in the mid-80's. Instead of a united philosophical movement driven by achievement, reason and benevolence, Objectivism has become one big bitchfest, or perhaps just as bad, the equivalent of a query about how many angels can dance on the head of someone's theory of induction, as if a real life Producer could actually give a crap about such things. In 1982, Rand died with the Objectivist ball on the five yard line, 1st and goal and the stadium pretty full. Since then, the "Objectivists" have managed lose the playbook, penalize themselves back to midfield, and, worst of all, hardly anybody cares to watch. One more time: what a shame. Ayn Rand deserves better.

You know, there's a slang name for people like that which stems from a very old profession, and outside of using it to refer to certain people in fields like politics, etc., I tend to avoid invoking in in polite company. The only main difference in subcategories are that some go after higher-end clients than others. I mean, you can always say things like "the only thing missing here is a totally flat head so you would have somewhere to put down your beer while they're . . ." But anyway I'm sure y'all get the picture. rde Nor does she brook dissent on her site very well, as is evidenced by the number of (non-conforming) comments deleted with what Campbell once called "Javertian zeal". It's really quite embarrassing, especially in light of "weird dogmatism" phrase you highlight above.

As always in the ARIan orbit, her less than 100% endorsement names no names. Robert Campbell I don't fault her for not naming names, although, admittedly, I have never been on the receiving end of her moral certitude, so I understand your lack of patience. At the end of the thread you link to, by the way, there are very interesting comments (pro and con) about the source of this dilemma for the ARI folks: i.e., the box Peikoff created 20 years ago when he deemed Objectivism "closed."

MSK – Some folks strive to achieve. Others sit on the sidelines bitching and nay-saying. Don't waste too many neurons on the latter. Cheers! Ed No kidding. Not only bitching and nay-saying, but doing so for all the world to see...

Rather than non-objective or subjective, a better designation comes from administrative law: Arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. If he wanted it to sting, that’s what he should have used. To do even better one must mine the terminology of Orwell: We’re witnessing the unpersoning process in action. It’s the Richard Sanford story all over again. For those not familiar, he was booted after refusing to toe the line on the Reisman expulsion, and asking for evidence. See the documentation. I just reviewed some of these materials re: Sanford. What a shame. What a clown-fest. All in the name of a philosophy based on reason. I came very close, back in my mid-80's Glory Days, to choosing a career path of becoming an Objectivist academic, when the waft of a potential Kelley/Peikoff split was in the air. I ended up enjoying being a lawyer far too much, and dodged that bullet. As Garth Brooks says, "sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers..."