The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

There are such animals as philosophers of physics. Generally, they have earned advanced degrees in both subjects. Which doesn't describe either Leonard Peikoff or David Harriman.

Leonard Peikoff is a philosopher—at least, he used to be one. Unfortunately, he wanted to exercise epistemic and moral authority in certain regions of Rand-land. His only way of gaining those objectives was to present himself as one whom Ayn Rand had told about philosophy.

Robert Campbell

PS. In computer programming and software design, a bachelor's degree is not always necessary, even today. Masters and doctoral degrees may be viewed with skepticism. When I worked for IBM, a company more degree-oriented than Microsoft or Google are today, the usual assumption was that people with graduate degrees in computer science wouldn't want to write code.

[Dan Haggerty]

What this seems to be coming down to real fast for those of us no spelunking this book as an issue of academic integrity is if it is still worth the time to read. Since the sources identified and the conclusions drawn look poor for me it is going to lie in the actually base concept of the DIM method at all.

So if I could ask a a question for those of you reading this is: Is the concept of Integration, Mis-Integration, and Disintegration sound as an idea into itself and how well is it actually developed by Peikoff. OK, that is two questions. 1) Is the DIM concept valid or at least interesting as a theory, and 2) How well does LP actually succeed at doing this?

[caroljane]

Writing a book for many years with inadequate feedback may result in a disaster when it's published, especially if you're not a genius novelist with a new novel.

--Brant

not yet claiming a disaster

Peikoff said he actually enjoyed writing this, although writing is usually a torture for him. It does sound sort of, "Hey Dave, let's put on a show! Meet you up in the tree house."

[Robert Campbell]

So if I could ask a a question for those of you reading this is: Is the concept of Integration, Mis-Integration, and Disintegration sound as an idea into itself and how well is it actually developed by Peikoff. OK, that is two questions. 1) Is the DIM concept valid or at least interesting as a theory, and 2) How well does LP actually succeed at doing this?

Dan,

I have some idea of how I will respond, but I want to finish the book first (still got a few pages to go) and then post what I view as key quotes from it.

So far I am inclined to doubt that the DIM hypothesis is nearly as consistent with historical evidence as Peikoff thinks, or as useful as Peikoff makes it out to be (he believes there are iron laws by one "mode" will be replaced by another; if that were truly so, it would make a lot of difference).

But a proper critique of the book includes examining what Peikoff says are its basic assumptions (while making sure that they are as Peikoff says they are) and seeing what in fact can be done working from them.

So it's not quite time for a "cognitive verdict," at least not for me.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

There are such animals as philosophers of physics. Generally, they have earned advanced degrees in both subjects. Which doesn't describe either Leonard Peikoff or David Harriman.

Leonard Peikoff is a philosopher—at least, he used to be one. Unfortunately, he wanted to exercise epistemic and moral authority in certain regions of Rand-land. His only way of gaining those objectives was to present himself as one whom Ayn Rand had told about philosophy.

Robert Campbell

PS. In computer programming and software design, a bachelor's degree is not always necessary, even today. Masters and doctoral degrees may be viewed with skepticism. When I worked for IBM, a company more degree-oriented than Microsoft or Google are today, the usual assumption was that people with graduate degrees in computer science wouldn't want to write code.

Bill Gates wrote code. Of course, he has no degrees whatsoever other than honorary.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Dan Haggerty names an interest group here at OL: those who are not spelunking, who have a phobia of Objectivish caves, who await the return of those who have gone deep and carried strong flashlights.

Dan is not yet sure there are legs to the base DM concept. Me too. It has been on folks' lips and in Objectivish discussion for some time, but the deepest way (or most efficient way) to grasp the DM concepts was to pony up the dollars and listen to the full tape set; if I remember correctly, this was something started by Lindsay Perigo. I followed the discussion at the time, but could think of nothing to say. In the back of my mind were a few murky questions:

- what makes 'integration' something that can be measured, individually (as with an individual's "score")? What is this thing integration that it can be deduced or inferred from a distance? If a best/most rational/accurate/panoptic integration can be scored individually, how do you take the measure in an aggregate of individuals, how do you measure the weight or prevalence of a society-wide level of effective/defective integration? How do you test your measurements? How is the causal relation traced out -- between Big Bad Misintegrator's foulness and its actual, persistent, measurable effect in the world of les autres? How can a correlation be set aside from a causal assumption?

- what is in reality being measured or said to be measured?

I just get all messed up when I put these questions into play. Since Peikoff's earlier book of diagnosis was so awful to my mind (not to be dismissed lightly, but to be thrown with great force**), since I do not really credit him with diagnostic acuity, since I am not a fan, I do not know the answers.

More basically, I am stumped by this quote taken from the Amazon Look Inside! feature:

Do I have this right? Has Dr P diagnosed a sickness? Has he done so convincingly? Are the lights going out?

I just haven't got my head around the basics, so I feel incompetent -- and thus await brave Robert Campbell's spelunking report.

___________________

** Attributed to Dorothy Parker: "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force."

Edited September 28, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

If Prince Andrew could make it down, Prof. Campbell can make it back up.

[william.scherk]

As we wait for Robert's Notes From the Caverns, scholarly Fred Seddon reports from the deep are up at OL's former competitor. In another devious attempt to cover my yawning ignorance, I heartily recommend the first installment, DIMwit - Part I. I like it most because I do not feel I have to read Part 2 immediately**. If you do not like green leafy vegetables, don't order salad.

Free appetizer:

These posts concern Peikoff’s new book, The Dim Hypothesis. DIMwit refers to a name Peikoff gives to himself, so much so it is on his current license plate. So for him it means, the wit who originated the DIM hypothesis. That should make clear that I’m certainly not calling Peikoff a dimwit in any pejorative sense.

So what is the thesis of this book? In one sense it is all about integration. On the dedication page he has a quotation from Rand, “Integration . . . is the key to man’s consciousness, to his conceptual faculty, to his basic premises, to his life.” And he dedicates the book “To Ayn Rand, who made an integrated life possible.” Chapter One is entitled, “Integration.” But what about "DIM?" It is an acronym. D = disintegration, I = integration and M = misintegration. There are also two mixed type, M + I and D + I. These five modes of integration are five ways of analyzing and understanding the cultures of the West. (He tells us he has nothing to say about the East.)

The thesis of the book concerns what kind of “integration” is typical of a given culture, so that we may better understand that culture and predict the future direction of America. Since these modes are man’s “basic integrative alternatives,” they are also a culture’s “basic integrative alternatives.” Obviously, Peikoff prefers the I mode and cultures that, in the main, are I mode cultures, viz., Greece and the Enlightenment.

Since cultures are rather large and unwieldy things, Peikoff limits his analysis to four fields, literature, physics, education and politics.

[ . . . ]

__________________

Part Two, Three, Four.

The original free course offering (that I stupidly turned down) from SOLO October 2006.

This approximates my mental image of the planning and equipment necessary for a safe exploration of yon DIM hypothesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6jOZiGRF9A

Edited September 29, 2012 by william.scherk

[caroljane]

You know what the "neatly slotting" lettered-numbered thing of DIM reminds me of? Casaubon's masterpiece in Middlemarch, the "Key to all the Mythologies".

[9thdoctor]

It has been on folks' lips and in Objectivish discussion for some time, but the deepest way (or most efficient way) to grasp the DM concepts was to pony up the dollars and listen to the full tape set;

For a mere $11 you can now get the whole thang, and no tapes to fumble with.

https://estore.aynra...ff?pagenumber=5

Neil Parille reported somewhere or other, I'm not going to hunt for the reference but I remember it vividly because I think I fell out of my chair, that during one of the Q&A's on physics someone asked him what he thought of such and such concerning Richard Feynman. His reply? He'd NEVER HEARD of Richard Feynman. He'd just given a lecture course on the history of physics; this is almost like having never heard of Einstein. I'm almost positive it was DIM. Shoot, this has the makings of a great YouTube clip, but I don't see myself sifting through so much Peikoff to find this material.

[Robert Campbell]

To Fred Seddon:

Fred,

Why waste your time over at SOLOP, posting for the edification of Perigo, Bandler, and Gregster?

Come on over here and get a discussion going.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, each in his own way, tell us how to use our minds. Lesser thinkers then elaborate.

The above gives us one way in which to interpret contradictory statements in the works of the Big Three. If a tenet in any of their writings is essential to the author's system—that is, to his integration of fundamentals—then it is essential to his philosophy. By contrast, if a tenet, however prominent or even cherished in his writings, contradicts such integration, it is worse than non-essential to his viewpoint; it is anti-essential. (A tenet with no effect on fundamental integration is irrelevant in this context.)

[…] Rejecting the Platonic element leaves Aristotle's integration intact, whereas rejecting even a single one of Aristotle's non-Platonic fundamentals destroys it. Take away Aristotle's notion of the Immovable Mover, for example, or his Platonic over-reliance on deduction, and he is still Aristotle, and even a better Aristotle for it. But take away his championing of Nature or the senses, and he is gone. […]

Taken line by line, the Big Three are not free of contradictions; in a deeper sense, however, they are free, because their contradictions are irrelevant to their integration of fundamentals. (p. 41)

[Robert Campbell]

One must identify a thinker's new ideas in regard to fundamentals, and determine whether they form by themselves a new integration of metaphysics and epistemology. If they do, then any older ideas in their books are at best irrelevant to their system, or at best mere elaborations of it. There will always be some older ideas, of course, because men build knowledge on knowledge, and so make integral to their thought many ideas discovered before them. In interpreting a great philosopher, however, one must bear in mind that his traditional ideas as such are not significant. (pp. 41-42)

[Robert Campbell]

I consider both of the preceding passages highly significant to anyone who wants to understand what Leonard Peikoff is doing in this book.

And I don't think that he is in fact restricting his recommended procedures to Plato, Aristotle, and Kant.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

And I don't think that he is in fact restricting his recommended procedures to Plato, Aristotle, and Kant.

Sounds like he’s extending to himself the privilege to rewrite any philosopher’s work at will. Just imagine people applying this to Ayn Rand herself. Oh wait, you don’t have to use any imagination, just a little Googling. I started up this new YouTube upload this morning, but I’m not planning to listen to it all. At 6:00 this philosophy professor claims that Ayn Rand said “religion should be illegal”. I suppose using Peikoff’s methods one could deduce this from Rand’s views in Metaphysics and Epistemology, just as Peikoff once demonstrated that Kant led to gas chambers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKUIrtZoPFg

[Brant Gaede]

One must identify a thinker's new ideas in regard to fundamentals, and determine whether they form by themselves a new integration of metaphysics and epistemology. If they do, then any older ideas in their books are at best irrelevant to their system, or at best mere elaborations of it. There will always be some older ideas, of course, because men build knowledge on knowledge, and so make integral to their thought many ideas discovered before them. In interpreting a great philosopher, however, one must bear in mind that his traditional ideas as such are not significant. (pp. 41-42)

All truth is in the Koran . . .

--Brant

this primacy of philosophy discards metaphysics for epistemology thus discards both

[Robert Campbell]

And I don't think that he is in fact restricting his recommended procedures to Plato, Aristotle, and Kant.

Sounds like he’s extending to himself the privilege to rewrite any philosopher’s work at will. Just imagine people applying this to Ayn Rand herself.

ND,

Peikoff certainly has extended this privilege to himself.

In Rand's case, he's generally then delegated the privilege... to Boeckmann, Harriman, Mayhew, Podritske, and Schwartz.

Robert Campbell

[Dan Haggerty]

Robert, thanks for the reply

If I may, and I’m at home enjoying some chilled Grey Goose so take this as open musing, but it sounds like the quoted passages are far more indicative of Peikoff monument building.

Without saying so Peikoff just outlined how we are supposed to consider his work as the next step of Rand’s work in epistemology, in one hand acknowledging her work as the blueprint while making her irrelevant to our evaluation of his “new integrations to metaphysics and epistemology”. He rides her framework while imploring us to ignore their presence while evaluating the whole. Then again that could backfire on him too.

How does one circumvent the locked doors of Objectivism as a closed system while managing to allow one’s work to become part of Rand’s? To be considered a great philosopher next to Rand? I think I need another drink.

[9thdoctor]

I think I need another drink.

[Dan Haggerty]

Dan Haggerty names an interest group here at OL: those who are not spelunking, who have a phobia of Objectivish caves, who await the return of those who have gone deep and carried strong flashlights.

I agree although for me it’s not really a phobia so much as a critical period of reevaluation.

I read Atlas Shrugged around 1990 and spent 15 of those years learning more and more through reading and some lecture tapes just fine, but never really knew what a mess the so-called leadership made of Objectivism. At Freedom Fest around 6-7 years ago I bumped into the Branden’s books then got the 411 from the guy working the book booth. That was a moment. Another is the last year when I finally made the jump online to really get a shock at the state of things.

The bottom line is the fact I have a lot of books waiting to be read and I have little desire to add to them right now if the book proves to be nothing more than an ironic demonstration of M1 in action.

[Dan Haggerty]

I think I need another drink.

You sir are a good man. I’m having another on doctor’s orders.

[Brant Gaede]

Robert, thanks for the reply

If I may, and I’m at home enjoying some chilled Grey Goose so take this as open musing, but it sounds like the quoted passages are far more indicative of Peikoff monument building.

Without saying so Peikoff just outlined how we are supposed to consider his work as the next step of Rand’s work in epistemology, in one hand acknowledging her work as the blueprint while making her irrelevant to our evaluation of his “new integrations to metaphysics and epistemology”. He rides her framework while imploring us to ignore their presence while evaluating the whole. Then again that could backfire on him too.

How does one circumvent the locked doors of Objectivism as a closed system while managing to allow one’s work to become part of Rand’s? To be considered a great philosopher next to Rand? I think I need another drink.

Magnum doofus?

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

I'm sure that Leonard Peikoff would respond to David Gordon's objections (in his recent review) by rejecting, say, the detail in Isaac Newton's writings about God intervening to keep planets in their orbits as anti-essential.

Just as he encouraged Bob Mayhew to treat Ayn Rand's remarks about the effects of cigarette smoking on health as anti-essential.

Does Peikoff have a diagnostic mode for those who insist on using a philosopher's ideas only in highly idealized form?

I expect it would qualify for at least an M₁.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Dan,

If you feel a need to catch up on the philosophical side of Objectivism, my recommendation is to start with The Vision of Ayn Rand, then read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, then maybe Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

No need for The DIM Hypothesis. Or for The Logical Leap. If you have an appetite for more technical epistemology, try The Evidence of the Senses.

Robert Campbell

[Dan Haggerty]

Dan,

If you feel a need to catch up on the philosophical side of Objectivism, my recommendation is to start with The Vision of Ayn Rand, then read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, then maybe Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

No need for The DIM Hypothesis. Or for The Logical Leap. If you have an appetite for more technical epistemology, try The Evidence of the Senses.

Robert Campbell

I have The Vision of Ayn Rand. I had the opportunity to get it personalized from NB when I met him briefly at Freedom Fest (three years ago now I think?) and (more importantly) had the chance to thank him for his work on self-esteem. I cherish that book a lot.

I was looking for something more technical and challenging, and it sounds like The Evidence of the Senses fits the bill so I'll dig into that next.

Thank you very much.