Objectivist Roundup


Recommended Posts

Here is what I wrote to this person:

[....]

The kind of worship [Perigo] wants for himself is not that due to the prime mover. He is the second-hander disciple who steps into prepared territory and starts laying down the rules in the name of the "true master."

I was considering mentioning that that sounds like a description of Peikoff.

You already mentioned this, I discovered on reading further:

Perigo doesn't resemble a true guru in the slightest. But he does resemble Peikoff, especially the petty side.

I will now start looking for works on those who crave to be The Heir of the Guru, or The Guru's Top Disciple and Defender. I think their psychology is quite different, but still fascinating.

An example you might find interesting is Ouspensky, who first considered himself top disciple to Gurdjieff, then decided that Gurdjieff had betrayed the true path and developed a competition alternate which he called "The Fourth Way."

Ouspensky, Google search link

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LP was always basically little more than a cheerleader who ran out of cheers leaving--well, what's left, whatever that is. I haven't a clue. Beyond the little TV work he did way back then which was pretty good he had to go and crucify himself on his Barbara Branden animadversions. I can speculate why without really knowing why--let's see this and let's see that--but he revealed himself to be without much substance.

--Brant

edit: LP does not refer to Leonard Peikoff--my bag

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LP was always basically little more than a cheerleader who ran out of cheers [and] revealed himself to be without much substance.

Brant,

There are more than a few who have accepted Peikoff as foremost interpreter of Rand, including some people of significant intellect. He isn't so easily swept aside as you indicate.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An example you might find interesting is Ouspensky, who first considered himself top disciple to Gurdjieff, then decided that Gurdjieff had betrayed the true path and developed a competition alternate which he called "The Fourth Way."

Ouspensky, Google search link

Ellen,

I have read about Ouspensky before (including in the Storr book), but I never read anything by him. I just looked online and saw that the chapter on Gurdjieff from Storr's Feet of Clay is online: GURDJIEFF.

Ouspensky is there right at the beginning of the chapter.

The kind of disciple I'm interested in looking into is different than Ouspensky, though. He and Gurdjieff lived around the same time and Ouspensky simply broke off from his master and went in a different direction--a new school so to speak. I'm more interested in the disciple who feels entitled to the kingdom built by "the true master" (a master who has passed on or is about to) and plays a lot of power games, including screwing people over, to keep that position. He uses "the true master" as the source and sanction of his power.

One of my interests in this is for personal reasons--I'm starting to write fiction in earnest and this is a great study in a particularly nasty villain archetype :smile:

I realize Perigo has announced he is going off into a "Fourth Way" of his own, but his main thrust in O-Land was to be the second-hander guru-disciple power monger. Now he's disillusioned that it did not come to pass, poor little thing.

Does he have the chops to pull off what he announced? I doubt it. I don't think he has the intellectual or spiritual grit, but let's see. Manipulating people is one thing. I see him doing that because that's what he does (even though he gets irrational and screws it up). Devising a philosophical system is quite another. I just don't see it with this monkey.

As an aside, I looked more deeply into the site where the Gurdjieff chapter was posted. It is set up by a guy named David Falk, who has a humongous bone to pick with Ken Wilber for some reason. (He wrote an entire book bashing Wilber.) The site is ostensively devoted to taking down Prem Rawat, but it branches out to all kinds of other gurus.

Falk is extremely opinionated--basically, from what I gather he seems to think most all of it is bullshit, but generally makes an amateur gossipy case instead of scholarly. There is one page that is interesting as an arbitrary overview of lots of gurus: Gurus Who Are Not the Perfect Master. If you scroll down the page, you will come to quite a Rogues Gallery and each thumbnail photo leads to a place where you get information on that particular guru. (The information is highly uneven, but that still doesn't detract from the value of this overview as an overview.)

He even includes George Harrison from The Beatles. (But don't tell Kat. :smile: )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize Perigo has announced he is going off into a "Fourth Way" of his own [...].

That's why I brought up Ouspensky.

Your links look interesting, but I might not have a chance to look into them tomorrow. We're getting a new modem installed, tech support scheduled to come help tomorrow, since the new one isn't working and we're sporadically using the old one, but it isn't functioning well.

The technological era, so labor-saving.........

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LP was always basically little more than a cheerleader who ran out of cheers [and] revealed himself to be without much substance.

Brant,

There are more than a few who have accepted Peikoff as foremost interpreter of Rand, including some people of significant intellect. He isn't so easily swept aside as you indicate.

Ellen

Oops! I meant the other LP. I forgot the same initials. Nothing I wrote was directed at Peikoff.

--Brant

I have two basic criticisms of Peikoff: the first is not that he took Rand's side in 1968, though he did a noxious job of it, but that he went off the tracks in 1986 when Barbara Branden's bio of Rand came out; the second is the basic approach to Objectivism we can call "Orthodox" and that extends to Rand and to the pre-break approach to the philosophy in which the intellectual is sacrificed to the culltural making the whole thing top heavy with a lot of arbitrariness masked as facts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently discovered two (2) new pieces of testimony amidst all the interviews on C-SPAN and radio interviews.

First, Jack Ruby "appeared" at the steps of an "NBC" [?] on location truck that was trying to get a tight shot on the doorway of the building wherein Oswals was to be transfered to death!

He asked the reporter what he was trying to set up and then said come with me I will get you in...

And, a long interview with Oswald's young, 19 year old, co-worker, who drove Oswald into work at the Book Depository that morning.

He stated, with absolute certainty, that the "package" that Oswald carried with the "curtain rods" was to short to have carried the Italian Carcano rifle by some twelve (12) to fifteen (15) inches.

Therefore, he did not bring the alleged assassination weapon with him the morning of November 22nd 1963.

A...

Interesting, Adam.

I have a hard time believing Oswald could fire off, with such accuracy, in such a short period of time & with his target moving and below him (bullet drop is an issue when shooting below eye-level).

Yes, I also remember that the second, or, third shot allegedly fired from the Book Depository window had to be made through a three (3) foot "hole" in the foliage of one of the trees.

I am not home now so it will have to wait until Monday to see if I can find the reference.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently discovered two (2) new pieces of testimony amidst all the interviews on C-SPAN and radio interviews.

First, Jack Ruby "appeared" at the steps of an "NBC" [?] on location truck that was trying to get a tight shot on the doorway of the building wherein Oswals was to be transfered to death!

He asked the reporter what he was trying to set up and then said come with me I will get you in...

And, a long interview with Oswald's young, 19 year old, co-worker, who drove Oswald into work at the Book Depository that morning.

He stated, with absolute certainty, that the "package" that Oswald carried with the "curtain rods" was to short to have carried the Italian Carcano rifle by some twelve (12) to fifteen (15) inches.

Therefore, he did not bring the alleged assassination weapon with him the morning of November 22nd 1963.

A...

Interesting, Adam.

I have a hard time believing Oswald could fire off, with such accuracy, in such a short period of time & with his target moving and below him (bullet drop is an issue when shooting below eye-level).

Yes, I also remember that the second, or, third shot allegedly fired from the Book Depository window had to be made through a three (3) foot "hole" in the foliage of one of the trees.

I am not home now so it will have to wait until Monday to see if I can find the reference.

A...

Never heard about the 3' window in the foilage. That poses the problem of getting the sight on the target quickly/ accurately. Someone even extremely experienced & trained would have difficulty doing that. The sh.t is getting thicker. I look forward to seeing the reference.

Happy & Healthy New Year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently discovered two (2) new pieces of testimony amidst all the interviews on C-SPAN and radio interviews.

First, Jack Ruby "appeared" at the steps of an "NBC" [?] on location truck that was trying to get a tight shot on the doorway of the building wherein Oswals was to be transfered to death!

He asked the reporter what he was trying to set up and then said come with me I will get you in...

And, a long interview with Oswald's young, 19 year old, co-worker, who drove Oswald into work at the Book Depository that morning.

He stated, with absolute certainty, that the "package" that Oswald carried with the "curtain rods" was to short to have carried the Italian Carcano rifle by some twelve (12) to fifteen (15) inches.

Therefore, he did not bring the alleged assassination weapon with him the morning of November 22nd 1963.

A...

Interesting, Adam.

I have a hard time believing Oswald could fire off, with such accuracy, in such a short period of time & with his target moving and below him (bullet drop is an issue when shooting below eye-level).

Yes, I also remember that the second, or, third shot allegedly fired from the Book Depository window had to be made through a three (3) foot "hole" in the foliage of one of the trees.

I am not home now so it will have to wait until Monday to see if I can find the reference.

A...

Never heard about the 3' window in the foilage. That poses the problem of getting the sight on the target quickly/ accurately. Someone even extremely experienced & trained would have difficulty doing that. The sh.t is getting thicker. I look forward to seeing the reference.

Happy & Healthy New Year!

This is not a bad summation of what's out their.

Not the source I meant, however, it does include the following statement:

Less than a second after Kennedy's limousine passed beneath the oak tree on the northwest end of Elm Street, Kennedy appeared to clutch or reach toward his throat or upper chest with both hands. Kennedy's wife, Jacqueline Kennedy, seated to his left, quickly turned to see what was going on with her husband.

Therefore, when you look at the lines of sight, one of the shots was supposedly made through the foliage, which is possible, just not probable.

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/jfkintro.htm

* Analysis of the photographic evidence revealed that Kennedy was hit by a bullet as the limousine passed beneath the oak tree. Even though this shot came at a time when a gunman's view of Kennedy from the Depository's sixth-floor window would have been obscured by the oak tree, the committee concluded the shot came from that window.

There it is referenced in the quote above.

A...

still not the one I remember, however, close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently discovered two (2) new pieces of testimony amidst all the interviews on C-SPAN and radio interviews.

First, Jack Ruby "appeared" at the steps of an "NBC" [?] on location truck that was trying to get a tight shot on the doorway of the building wherein Oswals was to be transfered to death!

He asked the reporter what he was trying to set up and then said come with me I will get you in...

And, a long interview with Oswald's young, 19 year old, co-worker, who drove Oswald into work at the Book Depository that morning.

He stated, with absolute certainty, that the "package" that Oswald carried with the "curtain rods" was to short to have carried the Italian Carcano rifle by some twelve (12) to fifteen (15) inches.

Therefore, he did not bring the alleged assassination weapon with him the morning of November 22nd 1963.

A...

Interesting, Adam.

I have a hard time believing Oswald could fire off, with such accuracy, in such a short period of time & with his target moving and below him (bullet drop is an issue when shooting below eye-level).

Yes, I also remember that the second, or, third shot allegedly fired from the Book Depository window had to be made through a three (3) foot "hole" in the foliage of one of the trees.

I am not home now so it will have to wait until Monday to see if I can find the reference.

A...

Never heard about the 3' window in the foilage. That poses the problem of getting the sight on the target quickly/ accurately. Someone even extremely experienced & trained would have difficulty doing that. The sh.t is getting thicker. I look forward to seeing the reference.

Happy & Healthy New Year!

This is not a bad summation of what's out their.

Not the source I meant, however, it does include the following statement:

Less than a second after Kennedy's limousine passed beneath the oak tree on the northwest end of Elm Street, Kennedy appeared to clutch or reach toward his throat or upper chest with both hands. Kennedy's wife, Jacqueline Kennedy, seated to his left, quickly turned to see what was going on with her husband.

Therefore, when you look at the lines of sight, one of the shots was supposedly made through the foliage, which is possible, just not probable.

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/jfkintro.htm

* Analysis of the photographic evidence revealed that Kennedy was hit by a bullet as the limousine passed beneath the oak tree. Even though this shot came at a time when a gunman's view of Kennedy from the Depository's sixth-floor window would have been obscured by the oak tree, the committee concluded the shot came from that window.

There it is referenced in the quote above.

A...

still not the one I remember, however, close.

Close enough. Thanks

-Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he isn't happy about the way things have gone with him and MM.

Ellen

I don't think he had (has?) any idea how stupid, ignorant and foolish he was to claim his interpretation of the Zapruder film proved his basic, conspiracy position.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read about Ouspensky before (including in the Storr book), but I never read anything by him. I just looked online and saw that the chapter on Gurdjieff from Storr's Feet of Clay is online: GURDJIEFF.

[....]

As an aside, I looked more deeply into the site where the Gurdjieff chapter was posted. It is set up by a guy named David Falk, who has a humongous bone to pick with Ken Wilber for some reason. (He wrote an entire book bashing Wilber.) The site is ostensively devoted to taking down Prem Rawat, but it branches out to all kinds of other gurus.

Falk is extremely opinionated--basically, from what I gather he seems to think most all of it is bullshit, but generally makes an amateur gossipy case instead of scholarly. There is one page that is interesting as an arbitrary overview of lots of gurus: Gurus Who Are Not the Perfect Master. If you scroll down the page, you will come to quite a Rogues Gallery and each thumbnail photo leads to a place where you get information on that particular guru. (The information is highly uneven, but that still doesn't detract from the value of this overview as an overview.)

He even includes George Harrison from The Beatles. (But don't tell Kat. :smile: )

I read the Storr chapter on Gurdjieff and did some exploring of other material on the Falk site. As you say, "highly uneven," but quite a collection. I'll look through it more later. Thanks for the links.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a rabbit hole here gents. Take a look at the LP and Max Headroom thread if you don't believe me. I actually do think that mighta/kinda broke him.

I think Pigero's actually too stupid to recognize how stupid Headroom revealed him to be on that thread. When Pigero is confronted with how stupid he is, he usually bans the messenger as acting "in bad faith." Perhaps Headroom's revealing the massiveness of Pigero's stupidity made Pigero feel that he's all alone in acting "in good faith," and therefore that there's no point in continuing his efforts to save the world with the power of SOLO?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a rabbit hole here gents. Take a look at the LP and Max Headroom thread if you don't believe me. I actually do think that mighta/kinda broke him.

I think Pigero's actually too stupid to recognize how stupid Headroom revealed him to be on that thread. When Pigero is confronted with how stupid he is, he usually bans the messenger as acting "in bad faith." Perhaps Headroom's revealing the massiveness of Pigero's stupidity made Pigero feel that he's all alone in acting "in good faith," and therefore that there's no point in continuing his efforts to save the world with the power of SOLO?

J

SOLO is just an ego machine that stopped working--a verbal selfie.

--Brant

OL works for me! (butter me up)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts about SOLOPassion are mixed. Linz and I have had some well-publicized disagreements, most recently concerning Barbara Branden. (I don’t think that he is freezing SOLO because Barbara is gone.) I am interested in what ideas he will develop concerning aesthetics. But I’ll offer two criticisms apart from those already offered on this thread.

First, I do think that advocacy involves both making rational arguments and stirring up passions, in Lindsay’s word, KASS. But the passions should never block one’s own clear thinking. I thing they often do in his case.

Second, I do agree that it is important for people to have heroes. But we need to put admiration in context. Some might write off Thomas Jefferson as a contemptible villain because he owned slaves. But so, unfortunately, did many men. The difference was the Jefferson also helped forge a free country—at least for whites—based on the moral principle of individual rights. In this he was a hero. But to say he was a hero is not to ignore his faults, e.g. owning slaves.

There’s a tendency for some hero-worshippers to see a situation as too black and white when there are, in fact, shades of gray involved. While I welcome hero worship, justice mandates that we not ignore the full context and reality of individuals.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that Barbara Branden was wrong about Linz and alcohol. I thought she overstated the case. But to say this is not to ignore all of the wonderful things about Barbara about which I’ve posted. Perhaps for Linz it was easier to throw out the baby with the bathwater and to simply launch a jihad against what he demonizes as evil. But that is injustice. (I fault Valiant most of all. To say his book was one-sided and unjust hack job is an understatement.)

I hope as Linz takes time off from SOLO to reflect on Objectivism and aesthetics that he puts passion in its rightful place, under the rule of reason. I know he’ll disagree with me here and protest that he does so already. Well, he and I also disagree on just how bad off the world is today. He thinks we’re doomed and there’s no stopping a collapse. I agree that things are bad but I do see reasons for hope. Perhaps he’s right and there’s little hope for the world or for him changing. I hope he’s wrong. We shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts about SOLOPassion are mixed. Linz and I have had some well-publicized disagreements, most recently concerning Barbara Branden. (I dont think that he is freezing SOLO because Barbara is gone.) I am interested in what ideas he will develop concerning aesthetics.

He won't be developing any ideas concerning aesthetics. He has no actual ideas. He only has emotions -- mostly anger about others' tastes -- and confusion over the difference between aesthetics and ethics. He actively avoids ideas when it comes to aesthetics.

First, I do think that advocacy involves both making rational arguments and stirring up passions, in Lindsays word, KASS. But the passions should never block ones own clear thinking. I thing they often do in his case.

Pigero has NEVER offered a rational argument for his positions on aesthetics. His big thing for years now has been to assert that Romanticism is "objectively superior" but to evade backing it up with a rational argument. There's no substance to his position, and there never will be.

For the sake of argument, lets say that Barbara Branden was wrong about Linz and alcohol. I thought she overstated the case.

You're being duped by Pigero in accepting his framing of their break. Pigero's use of alcohol was a side issue that

Pigero uses to play victim. The real issue was Barbara's unwillingness to tolerate Pigero's abusive behavior toward not only Barbara but many others as well. It's amazing, Ed, that you're so gullible when it comes to Pigero's spin on the issue. How is it that he can charm you so easily?

But to say this is not to ignore all of the wonderful things about Barbara about which Ive posed.

I disagree. I think that your accepting Pigero's falsely framing of the issue as being about alcohol is to ignore reality and to spit on the memory of Barbara.

I hope as Linz takes time off from SOLO to reflect on Objectivism and aesthetics that he puts passion in its rightful place, under the rule of reason.

He has never put passion under the rule of reason in the past, so why would you think that there's any chance that he'll do so in the future?

I know hell disagree with me here and protest that he does so already. Well, he and I also disagree on just how bad off the world is today. He thinks were doomed and theres no stopping a collapse.

He doesn't think that we're ~totally~ doomed. He thinks that there's a chance that his aesthetic consumer tastes might save the world. The world will be saved, in his view, if people learn to hate what he hates.

One area where the two of you agree is in your love of Turandot, with its evil, naturalistic message that man lacks volition and is a plaything of his libido, and is dazzled by mere surface beauty into overlooking torture and murder. It's hilarious watching the two of you blame cultural decline on others' preferences in art while promoting Turandot yourselves.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed,

I have to tease you.

Wanna make a post on SLOP praising OL?

:)

And maybe throw in a good word about me like you do with Perigo here, maybe with some qualifiers about disagreement on less important issues (in order to sound objective)?

You could follow it up with a comment on what a positive thing it is that OL and, say, RoR will be around to carry on the good fight in spreading Rand's ideas through Internet forums.

Wanna see how that plays over there?

:smile:

(Gawd, I'm wicked sometimes. :smile: )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed is strong with himself. The BS doesn't stick or work. Nobody can get a gratuitous rise out of him. Not what LP wants. Must have been driving him crazy. Maybe that's why LP is shutting down SLOP--that and Ed's beautiful children.

--Brant

rebuke, rebuke, rebuke

--and that stupid dog!

~woof~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now