Objectivist Roundup

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ah me...

I gotta haul this one out again.

I know I shouldn't, but it's bigger than me.

Backstory for people who don't know:

Perigo was invited once to give a speech at a TAS event. He called Barbara some horrible names at the time in public (on his site) and she objected in public (here on OL). The TAS folks placed a condition on his talk that he could not use the TAS platform for personal bashing--especially not of other guest speakers (and she was one). He had to restrict his talk to the topic they had agreed upon. He got pissy, called the TAS people horrible names and decided it would be hypocritical to do the talk. So he canceled.

Then, he went from pissy to boneheaded. He staged a book-signing for Valliant and PARC right next door to the TAS event, right at the same time--and he traveled halfway around the world on someone's dime to be there. (I hope whoever paid for that got their money's worth.) He tried to siphon off the TAS audience--instead of building up his own--like a true secondhander.

(btw - The TAS event was a success and the booksigning fizzled with about half-a-dozen people showing up, if I remember correctly.)

And what about the TAS people at the time (including Ed, who I care a lot about)?

Well... they just embraced the suck, to quote Pelosi. The closed their eyes, lowered their voices, gritted their teeth and sucked it up. Like they always did, like they always do, and like they always will do when Perigo bashes them.

Perigo will never stop bashing them and they will never stop sucking it up.

Until one or the other dies.

I used to think it was some kind of ethical something or other, or maybe misguided hope the lousiness would stop one day. (I empathize because I used to hope like that.) But after all these years, I think it's metaphysical. They (both sides) did/do/will do that because that's what they do.

Objectivist Schism Blues

by Yours Truly

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'll be damned.

Look what Ed just posted on SLOP:

I might as well also note that those of you who want to keep up with my pieces, which have been posted on SOLO, you can read them and discuss them on Objectivist Living and Rebirth of Reason. (And the Atlas Society website, of course!) I know Linz is not a fan of these sites but I'm sure Michael Stuart Kelly would welcome your civil observations on OL about a number of topics. Is civility opposed to KASS? I don't think so. But we'll have to discuss this topic somewhere other than SOLO after January 1, 2014!

What's that gagging sound I hear?

It looks like this is going to be among the last things posted on SLOP, so it will just sit there and fester in certain souls like gangrene.

Our little subculture may be many things, but boring it is not.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Let's take bets on whether it'll stay up.

--Brant
I bet "No" even odds

edit: bet withdrawn; I'm sure it's going to stay up now but buried under some trash: I hope that poor guy from Norway gets his head straightened out in the next few years

frankly, I wish Ed hadn't made that last post there for it's a pretense, whether or not he knows it, about things not being as they are

Edited December 29, 2013 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

Perigo was invited once to give a speech at a TAS event.

Actually, the codependent people at TAS were so bedazzled by Pigero's narcissism and abuse of them that they invited him to give TWO speeches, despite the fact that he didn't meet their stated criteria for presenters, and despite the fact that they were rejecting other people who, in contrast to Pigero, wished to give intellectually serious and substantive presentations. The folks at TAS are like high school girls with a crush on the class loser "bad boy." It's a good thing that they're actually males and can't get pregnant.

He called Barbara some horrible names at the time in public (on his site) and she objected in public (here on OL). The TAS folks placed a condition on his talk that he could not use the TAS platform for personal bashing--especially not of other guest speakers (and she was one). He had to restrict his talk to the topic they had agreed upon. He got pissy, called the TAS people horrible names and decided it would be hypocritical to do the talk. So he canceled.

Yup, but that's not the way that Pigero tells it. In reality, he withdrew, but he likes to appear to be a victim, so now he claims that the invitation was withdrawn:

"I suppose what's happened is that between Ed's second-to-last post and his last one, he's been got at by the same people who browbeat him into withdrawing my invitation to speak at TAS in whatever year it was."

Anyway, I wish Ed good luck with trying to fix Pigero. Maybe someday he'll appreciate you and give you flowers and approval.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I suppose this should be over here:

On rereading this, I think I wrote it before Perigo canceled his speech. So it was during the kerfuffle, not after it.

I thought Perigo's speeches (there were two of them scheduled) were canceled by TAS. (I think there was an earlier occasion when he canceled, but didn't Ed disinvite Perigo in 2008?)

Ellen

Ellen,

I'm going on memory alone so I won't swear to it on a stack of AS.

But I think they gave Perigo the conditions and he first agreed to them, then didn't.

Or something.

It might be worth looking up just to keep the backstory accurate.

Michael

Ellen,

I think I got it all mixed up and did some digging. It was in 2006 that Perigo refused to speak at TAS and instead did a lame-ass speech at the book-signing with Valliant right beside the TAS conference.

But Ed didn't merely uninvite Perigo for the 2008 participation (I didn't check how many speeches Perigo was supposed to do, but if you say two, that's fine with me). I think Will screwed up that year by inviting Perigo in the first place, knowing he was pushing PARC as hard has he could and both Barbara and Nathaniel were speaking at the event. (The word "clueless" comes to mind. )

Ed set conditions due to the acrimony Perigo was promoting and said he needed a commitment. Like he said, he was afraid of a bait-and-switch (and justly so).

On Thu, 2008-01-17 20:27, Ed opened a thread on SLOP and posted a long explanation and his conditions for civility (see here). I quote:

Now I must ask Lindsay: Exactly what is your topic and what are your intentions? Is your aim truly to reduce “fratricide” within the movement, as we had hoped? Clearly TAS does not want to be the victim of some kind of “bait-and-switch.”

This, then, is a challenge. I want Lindsay Perigo to commit publicly to joining me in undoing the incivility in the movement that he himself has too frequently helped to foster. This, of course, means being civil in the content of any speech at TAS and in behavior at any TAS event.

But the challenge goes further. If all the energy and—yes—passion that has gone into internecine battles among Objectivists were expended instead on developing and promoting the philosophy in a constructive way, we would be much further along than we are today. Therefore I would like Lindsay to commit to this wider goal of building an open and civil Objectivist movement and to start it with SOLO-Passion, the forum for so much ill-will. I want to hear some proposals.

. . .

... I await a constructive public response and commitment from Lindsay, which will help us determine whether his talk at the 2008 Summer Seminar will be consistent with our mission and purposes.

On Fri, 2008-01-18 22:49, Perigo responded in response to Ed's request for proposals:

Well, that’s too bad, Ed, because I’m not going to make any.

Then ended with this

Ed, I am not going to tailor my comments or actions to a lynch mob, and neither should you. You had already determined that my talk was consistent with your mission and purposes. What's changed, apart from the baying of hyenas?

You have my response in the foregoing.

Your call.

Barbara then posted (on Jan. 21, 2008): My response to Ed Hudgins' "The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar" where she charmingly said: "Lindsay Perigo is the suicide bomber of Objectivism."

After that I stopped digging, but I believe shortly thereafter Perigo got uninvited.

Ed had laid down conditions and Perigo had refused to entertain them and refused to make any commitment to stop the crap. So it was not a simple uninvite from backstage machinations as is usual in these matters. It was all out in the open. Also, Perigo was given a choice and he chose.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

frankly, I wish Ed hadn't made that last post there for it's a pretense, whether or not he knows it, about things not being as they are

Ditto.

Yup, but that's not the way that Pigero tells it. In reality, he withdrew, but he likes to appear to be a victim, so now he claims that the invitation was withdrawn:

"I suppose what's happened is that between Ed's second-to-last post and his last one, he's been got at by the same people who browbeat him into withdrawing my invitation to speak at TAS in whatever year it was."

Anyway, I wish Ed good luck with trying to fix Pigero. Maybe someday he'll appreciate you and give you flowers and approval.

J

Memory sure is tricky. As I recall, Jonathan, you were one of those - as was I - who booed Ed's way of handling the disinvite, saying that he should have simply acknowledged that TAS had goofed in issuing the invitation and withdrawn it instead of placing post hoc conditions which of course Perigo wouldn't meet.

Guess I'll have to search.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I found the titles of the two talks Perigo was slated to give:

Linz has been invited to talk at the upcoming Summer Seminar on two topics -- of his choice, but the topics were accepted by TAS's program director Will Thomas:

(1) "Why Romantic Music Is Objectively Superior (and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron)"; (2) "Objectivism's Worst Enemy: Objectivists" -- which he said in his original announcement "will be about the pan-factional error of intrinsicism and religiosity generally."

Also, the date of the revocation:

Despite the revocation of Perigo's invitation, [...].

But I haven't yet found the thread on which the disinvite was announced.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

What on earth was Will thinking at the time?

To invite Perigo within that online climate--where he constantly attacked and bullied people--to give a talk on how Objectivists were eating their own from "the pan-factional error of intrinsicism and religiosity" (what the hell does that even mean within the context of Perigo? ) was like inviting Al Gore or Nancy Pelosi to give a talk on the inaccuracies and excesses of climate change legislation proponents. Or maybe Lyndon LaRouche to give a talk on the psychology of how conspiracy theories develop.

I know many, many people in O-Land looked at that and scratched their heads in wonder.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

What on earth was Will thinking at the time?

To invite Perigo within that online climate [...].

Apparently, Will didn't pay attention to on-line fora. His obliviousness is one of the things for which he was criticized.

I still don't find the thread on which the announcement was made about the invitation being withdrawn, and I got distracted reading some other threads from that time period which came up upon my searching for Jonathan's posts from then.

I don't find anything in which Jonathan criticized Ed specifically for the way the rescinding of the invitation was handled.

I have to get off the Internet now. Sunday, Larry's and my duet-playing day.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I have to get off the Internet now. Sunday, Larry's and my duet-playing day.

Ellen

Tennis?

--Brant

I thought tennis was doubles--oh, well

[Ellen Stuttle]

Hudgins: Invitation Rescinded (TAS 2008 Seminar)

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I think this episode was the effective end of TAS. Objectivism, commonly understood, needs a cult following to thrive and by its nature TAS is anti-cult (and non-KASS mindlessness). Bidinotto soon left and started to write his novel. That "The Break" of '68 created two Orthodox Objectivisms is fallacious. The only one that could seriously survive was centered on Peikoff and it's not done all that well for all the ostensive neo-conning. The intellectual power of David Kelley could not save it nor Barbara Branden never publicly giving up on it. The philosophy of Ayn Rand is just and only that--hers. Anyone else is free to embrace its basic principles and go with them without trying to live inside someone else's construct.

Those principles are easy to know and hard to use. The Orthodox way, however, is practically impossible. You can study it for decades and not master it. Even if you think you've finally "got it" you'll only find it's got you and it's your master. This is quite different than a professional philosopher studying it because the pro looking at it from the outside in is not trying to understand it from the inside out--with him being on the inside.

I'm personally not willing to refer to myself as an "objectivist" as opposed to "Objectivist." That's because I'll not concede the nomenclature to the Orthodox, but that's me in private for I've no time left in my life to keep telling people, "I'm not that kind of 'Objectivist'." Better to simply let the Orthodoxies fall over on their faces without even any negative support with that kind of referencing. That said I've no objection, really, to what anyone else might decide to do about this; the more time that passes the less it will matter. The intellectual future of Objectivism belongs to Stephen Boydstun* and such as might be found in JARS*.

--Brant

*not a comment on actual content except in the most general way

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hudgins: Invitation Rescinded (TAS 2008 Seminar)

Ellen

Ellen,

Thanks for finding that. Once OL moves to the cloud and gets away from software licences that have weird restrictions (I don't know when, but it will happen), searching for old stuff within the forum will become a breeze.

I went to the SLOP link in my post you link-quoted and read through that thread again.

What a hoot.

(For those who see in between the lines, this was all about power, but that is another issue.)

One thing stood out to me from the distance. The SLOPPERS called Ed Hudgins every name in the book on that thread for firing Perigo's ass, but the favorite was some variation of "gutless."

Actually, if you read Ed's letter, he showed he had more than enough balls to stand up to a rabble-rousing bully and put him in his place (see here to go directly to SLOP).

I do want to apologize for not vetting your talk more carefully in the first place. Had I done so, perhaps you would not have been invited at all, sparing all concerned a lot of grief.

In any case, we take your statements and behavior as a rejection of the terms under which we wanted you to speak at the 2008 Summer Seminar and it is my decision that you not be included on the program this year.

"It is my decision..."

Not, "We have decided," or worse, "TAS has decided." Not, "You leave us no choice." Not, "It is out of our control."

Instead, "It is MY decision..."

I like that.

It sounds Randian.

Michael

[Jonathan]

frankly, I wish Ed hadn't made that last post there for it's a pretense, whether or not he knows it, about things not being as they are

Ditto.

Yup, but that's not the way that Pigero tells it. In reality, he withdrew, but he likes to appear to be a victim, so now he claims that the invitation was withdrawn:

"I suppose what's happened is that between Ed's second-to-last post and his last one, he's been got at by the same people who browbeat him into withdrawing my invitation to speak at TAS in whatever year it was."

Anyway, I wish Ed good luck with trying to fix Pigero. Maybe someday he'll appreciate you and give you flowers and approval.

J

Memory sure is tricky. As I recall, Jonathan, you were one of those - as was I - who booed Ed's way of handling the disinvite, saying that he should have simply acknowledged that TAS had goofed in issuing the invitation and withdrawn it instead of placing post hoc conditions which of course Perigo wouldn't meet.

Guess I'll have to search.

Ellen

I found what my position had been:

"Instead of asking him to behave like a rational adult, I think you should accept the consequences of having invited an emotional toddler who thinks that his behavior is virtuous, not by asking him to tone it down, but by asking him to do what he neglected to do in his speech at James Valliant's book signing event: publicly quote from his own angriest SOLO posts as examples of Objectivist virtue, including the parts which he later edited out, since they represent the type of behavior that Barbara was talking about in her speech on Objectivist rage. I think you should encourage him to publicly quote his own virtuous 'passion' as examples of what's right with the Objectivist movement, and let the audience decide for themselves."

J

[Kat]

OK, so the suicide bomber of Objectivism is finally blowing himself up. Kinda cool, actually.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I found what my position had been:

"Instead of asking him to behave like a rational adult, I think you should accept the consequences of having invited an emotional toddler who thinks that his behavior is virtuous, not by asking him to tone it down, but by asking him to do what he neglected to do in his speech at James Valliant's book signing event: publicly quote from his own angriest SOLO posts as examples of Objectivist virtue, including the parts which he later edited out, since they represent the type of behavior that Barbara was talking about in her speech on Objectivist rage. I think you should encourage him to publicly quote his own virtuous 'passion' as examples of what's right with the Objectivist movement, and let the audience decide for themselves."

J

Could anyone take that seriously?

Ellen

[Jonathan]

I found what my position had been:

"Instead of asking him to behave like a rational adult, I think you should accept the consequences of having invited an emotional toddler who thinks that his behavior is virtuous, not by asking him to tone it down, but by asking him to do what he neglected to do in his speech at James Valliant's book signing event: publicly quote from his own angriest SOLO posts as examples of Objectivist virtue, including the parts which he later edited out, since they represent the type of behavior that Barbara was talking about in her speech on Objectivist rage. I think you should encourage him to publicly quote his own virtuous 'passion' as examples of what's right with the Objectivist movement, and let the audience decide for themselves."

J

Could anyone take that seriously?

Ellen

It should be taken seriously. It was a valid solution to a predicament that had put TAS in the position of not being taken seriously. Anyone who would request Pigero to speak on the subjects of aesthetics and Objectivist infighting must be oblivious and bedazzled to the point of deserving to never be taken seriously.

On a related note, over on SOLO, Ed had been expressing excited interest in Pigero's "thinking" on aesthetics. Fortunately, he appears to be pulling out of that nosedive:

"Linz - I am quite interested in the relationship between aesthetics, culture, and politics and I look forward to your thoughts on these matters. But one must not simply state preferences or presuppositions--with KASS, of course! One must provide reason and analysis to support one's views. Many suggest that you're not capable of doing this. I hope you will. I will watch with interest. Good luck!"

J

[Brant Gaede]

I found what my position had been:

"Instead of asking him to behave like a rational adult, I think you should accept the consequences of having invited an emotional toddler who thinks that his behavior is virtuous, not by asking him to tone it down, but by asking him to do what he neglected to do in his speech at James Valliant's book signing event: publicly quote from his own angriest SOLO posts as examples of Objectivist virtue, including the parts which he later edited out, since they represent the type of behavior that Barbara was talking about in her speech on Objectivist rage. I think you should encourage him to publicly quote his own virtuous 'passion' as examples of what's right with the Objectivist movement, and let the audience decide for themselves."

J

Could anyone take that seriously?

Ellen

It should be taken seriously. It was a valid solution to a predicament that had put TAS in the position of not being taken seriously. Anyone who would request Pigero to speak on the subjects of aesthetics and Objectivist infighting must be oblivious and bedazzled to the point of deserving to never be taken seriously.

On a related note, over on SOLO, Ed had been expressing excited interest in Pigero's "thinking" on aesthetics. Fortunately, he appears to be pulling out of that nosedive:

"Linz - I am quite interested in the relationship between aesthetics, culture, and politics and I look forward to your thoughts on these matters. But one must not simply state preferences or presuppositions--with KASS, of course! One must provide reason and analysis to support one's views. Many suggest that you're not capable of doing this. I hope you will. I will watch with interest. Good luck!"

J

Ed isn't saying "Good luck!" He's saying "Goodbye!"

Any bet SLOP doesn't close down at midnight or any bet it won't be back by early February with LP leading a triumphal parade with slaves shouting that glory isn't fleeting?

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Pigero appears to be encouraging people to participate on OL:

"We are all passionate valuers, are we not? Then we shouldn't be mute on a site which gives us unprecedented freedom to express and debate our values—especially when those values pertain to the very survival of civilisation itself...I'm mindful more than ever of the value of an Objectivist site that allows access to all-comers and welcomes open and spirited debate."

I mean, obviously he's not talking about SOLO, since all-comers are not welcome and spirited debate is shut down when Pigero's side is losing. The only Objectivist site that offers "unprecedented freedom to express and debate our values" is OL, so it must be what he's talking about.

Anyway, Pigero already appears to be starting off on the wrong foot. He's going to focus on writing a new "Credo." He's Credo crazy:

"I shall write a new SOLO Credo while preserving the current one—no revisionist history here—and lay out a further Credo of Authenticism in installments over time right here where folk may critique it as it unfolds."

Instead of writing yet another soundbite-sized declaration of his passions and consumer tastes, he should go beyond Credos and concentrate on putting some substance behind them.

J

[Brant Gaede]

He's talking about SOLO.

--Brant

it's verbal manure for the coming transmogrification of SOLO into more SOLO

they used to call this "flouncing" which he and Joe blessed with "moderation" (of Barbara)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's another way this might play out.

1. Since Perigo got some worship-luv, and got some righteous taunting as he was going down (he was almost dead from self-pity, poor thing), he's feeling better and now talking about reopening SLOP even before he shuts it down.

2. He reopens SLOP around February trumpeting something he calls Authenticism as a replacement for Objectivism.

3. He half-asses his presentation of this new idea and concludes it would be cowardly to leave the world to the hero-diminishers, yada yada yada, so he chucks out the new idea (but keeps a few new jargon terms he makes up) and re-embraces Rand (in his half-assed way) with new fervor.

4. Nobody cares but the core now there, and he plods on same old same old.

Sounds exciting.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Kira Peikoff on testing DNA tests.

[Jonathan]

Here's another way this might play out.

1. Since Perigo got some worship-luv, and got some righteous taunting as he was going down (he was almost dead from self-pity, poor thing), he's feeling better and now talking about reopening SLOP even before he shuts it down.

2. He reopens SLOP around February trumpeting something he calls Authenticism as a replacement for Objectivism.

3. He half-asses his presentation of this new idea and concludes it would be cowardly to leave the world to the hero-diminishers, yada yada yada, so he chucks out the new idea (but keeps a few new jargon terms he makes up) and re-embraces Rand (in his half-assed way) with new fervor.

4. Nobody cares but the core now there, and he plods on same old same old.

Sounds exciting.

Michael

It's standard Pigero carnival barking: Hype, misread everything as strong demand for whatever Pigero is pushing, hype some more, recycle some worn out old emotings, hype some more. Then flop, fizzle, and fade. Then hype what a major success it was.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

I like what I have seen out of Kira so far. I have her novel. I haven't read it yet, but it looks like a very good first novel.

There's this thing in NYT you just posted. I bet there's other good stuff out there. My memory is tickling about something else she did that caught my attention, but I just can't recall right now.

Everything I've seen from her goes up, not down. She's doing her own thing and doing it well.

Regardless of what else one may think of her father, going by how she turned out, he seems to be an excellent father.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

I like what I have seen out of Kira so far. I have her novel. I haven't read it yet, but it looks like a very good first novel.

There's this thing in NYT you just posted. I bet there's other good stuff out there. My memory is tickling about something else she did that caught my attention, but I just can't recall right now.

Everything I've seen from her goes up, not down. She's doing her own thing and doing it well.

Regardless of what else one may think of her father, going by how she turned out, he seems to be an excellent father.

Michael

I like some of what I see, too, but I'm a bit more cautious than you are. I don't see her as having as much passion for her craft as she does for the spotlight and for rubbing elbows with those who do have a passion for the craft. She has some Big Ideas, but I remember making fun of some of the details of her writing style, and wondering how she got published, even if by a small publisher -- as you might expect of someone with a connection to Rand and Objectivism, she's strong on the moral conflict in her fiction but not very polished on the artistry of presenting the moral conflict. It's almost as if aesthetics is morality in her view.

J