More Collectivism from LP & ARI

[Brant Gaede]

Ross, All I can figure out about DIM is that it seems to a way of understanding, positing and arguing through conceptual metaphor. I'd bet it has something to do with "thinking in principles" and conceptual integration. When the book comes out I suspect it will be more of an excuse for rehashed commentary than an example of epistemological innovation, but I will give it a fair hearing.

I used to get mailings from something called "Neo-Tech." A way to knowledge that'd let one dominate and prosper, etc. Without too much consideration I dismissed it because I wasn't being swept away by what I took must have been Neo-Tech extant in the mailings: where was the power? Why wasn't I responding by opening my wallet and sending in my money? Why weren't they getting to me? Here's my bet: DIM is Objectivist Neo-Tech.

--Brant

Edited November 7, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Rich Engle]

Heh...

For the life of me, I cannot now remember where it was written, but I'm pretty sure it was Nathaniel that said it, in his relentlessly economical way (Barbara, care to fill in if you have it?)

"Poor Leonard."

That stuck with me forever. It says it all.

[Mikee]

"Poor Leonard."

I remember this too. It may have been from a taped conversation or interview?

[Brendan Hutching]

Brendan; Great Post! Peikoff said nothing could be in Objectivism that Ayn Rand did not know about. The DIM hypothesis came into exsistence after Miss Rand's death. Sound like a contradiction to me. Has Yaron Brook said anything about this issue?

Hi Chris

I’m strictly an outsider, so not in the loop on any internal ARI matters. My speculation on the status of DIM comes from a comment made by Diana Hsieh at this link:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2004/04/que...-on-closed.html

Alternatively, google: hsieh peikoff applications, and it’s the first link that comes up – the post is for Wednesday April 21 2004. Or go to Noodlefood and search: peikoff applications.

Here’s a couple of quotes:

“We might think of many such insights as implicit in the system and thus part of it, even if not explicitly identified until after Ayn Rand's death…

When a good, deeply Objectivist explanation and justification is offered, should we continue to allow those cardinal values to stand outside the system? Or should we integrate them by incorporating this new understanding into our understanding of Objectivism? The latter seems like the right approach to me, but it also seems incompatible with the strictly closed system.”

This article is essentially a justification for incorporating post-Rand material into Objectivism while still maintaining a ‘closed system’, ie that excludes people Diana doesn’t like. I don’t know her status in ARI, but there at least exists an argument that could be used to support DIM as part of Objectivism. And Peikoff certainly seems to be pushing hard for the acceptance of his hypothesis within Objectivist circles.

Whether he will push hard enough to alienate other ranking ARIs is another matter. As you say, it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Brendan

[Brendan Hutching]

What, briefly, is this DIM hypothesis of Peikoff’s?

I’m not familiar enough with DIM to give an explanation. From what I’ve read, it’s an outgrowth of Rand’s views on rationalism, empiricism and Objectivism. Best to get it from the horse’s mouth by googling: DIM Peikoff.

Brendan

[Rich Engle]

Quite frankly, reading Diana Hsieh is about as fun as crawling inside of an old, occupied coffin.

She's managed to embody the worst that academics can offer. Hell, I have an academic roomate, on the PhD path via Case Western for music, and she's got more heat in her little finger than, well... I'm not going there.

Hsieh, above all, is turbo-verbose. She has taken statistical density to a new level. This is not waves pounding on the rocks; it's not even close.

Above all, what she lacks is innovation, creativity. Instead, tired diatribe.

John Irving wrote an absolutely splendid novel called "A Widow For One Year" that deals with academic types in a frank, blackly funny way. There's a particular quote in there that just about gets Hsieh to a tee-- close enough for jazz, anyway.

She is tired, and pathetic. My eyes start crossing whenever I dare diving into her writing these days. She should just submit her papers. As an Internet writer, she is supremely yucko.

[Bidinotto]

Here are my final, last-minute thoughts on this election.

In addition, I have provided links there to the intramural bloodletting occurring within ARI ranks right now, in the aftermath of Leonard Peikoff's insulting and outrageous characterizations of those Objectivists who disagree with his idiotic defense of the Democrats. It appears that a big split is once again in the making within ARI, with long-time loyalists like Jack Wakefield, Stephen and Betsy Speicher, and columnist Robert Tracinski (editor of The Intellectual Activist) being viciously attacked for challenging Peikoff's lunacy.

This is just another example of the kind of irrational tribalism that prompted David Kelley to write The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, and to found an alternative to ARI. I can only hope that after Tracinski, the Speichers, and their allies get over their initial shock, they'll begin to understand the reasons that led so many of us to depart the Peikovian/ARI ranks.

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; One can hope. I suspect some will continue to follow along. Objectivism is supposed to be a philosphy of reason. Why are so many of its followers unreasonable?

[jordanz]

As Robert points to, there is quite a division in the ARI community over this and I'm happily surprised by this. I thought they'd all follow LP lock-step. But, the courage of many of them to counter LP and state reality as they see it gives me a lot of hope about some reconciliation in the Oist community. 2006 was the year of PARC, maybe 2007 can be the year that the worst of ARI is jettisoned.

Edited November 8, 2006 by jordanz

[Reidy]

Further along the lines of what the last few posts have said, I notice that Tracinski at TIA Daily has been distancing himself explicitly from ARI orthodoxy. Last week he denounced Peikoff's by-now-infamous election advice. Today he began a series entitled "The Collapse of the Collapse of Civilization," saying that history has turned in freedom's favor and that the world that Rand and Orwell lived in is not the world today. He even notes, with examples, that his own publication bought into this until only a few years ago; if you hear about eastern Europe moving toward capitalism, they said in 1992, don't believe it.

Tracinski won't blame [unnamed] "Objectivist intellectuals" for not seeing that things are looking up. I suspect they'll blame him for plenty.

(This enterprise reminds me of "Kremlinology," whereby outside observers used to infer what was going on among the Soviet or Chinese rulers from their statements on topics like esthetics or the theory of dialectics.)

Peter

[Bidinotto]

Peter, I agree that -- for all my disagreements with Tracinski and the Speichers -- they have shown unusual courage and integrity in their stand on Peikoff's moronic and insulting attack on Objectivists who aren't enthusiastically endorsing and voting for Democrats. While I have no illusions that they would appreciate any praise from me, I want to be on record that they are to be commended for their intellectual independence.

The broader implications have yet to play out, for these individuals and others are, in effect, challenging Peikoff's previously unassailable papal status in ARI circles, and are even demonstrating less-than-enthusiastic reactions to his new pet theory, the "DIM Hypothesis." Some are even suggesting in ARI-friendly blogs that Peikoff's DIM theory has become a framework from which he's rationalistically deducing a variety of dubious positions on issues in the absence of sufficient empirical facts.

This once again demonstrates that Objectivism itself may ultimately prove to be the worst enemy of ARI dogmatists. Those better individuals at ARI who take seriously Rand's principles will find themselves increasingly at odds with those others who have been hijacking and warping them.

[Reidy]

As of Wednesday morning, it looks like most voters took Peikoff's advice. He may be more influential than we realized.

Peter

[Rich Engle]

Well, Ohio definitely did some housecleaning. I guess we no longer have the worst governor in the country. Taft was such a nightmare. Nothing pleased me more than watching Ken Blackwell and his fundamentalist cadre take a nice, hard whuppin'.

Senator Mike Dewine got piked by Sherrod Brown, a lot of which had to do with DeWine having one of the filthiest negative campaign ads I've ever seen.

On the other hand, Issue 5 (banning smoking in all public places) beat Issue 4, which placed limits on banning. 5 goes into effect in 30 days, and the bar business, and the gigging business are going to take horrible hits. One way around it is to create private clubs requiring token "memberships."

At the same time Issue 5 passed, another one for funding arts and education passed, which means they'll put a 30 cent additional tax on cigarettes.

So they're banning out smoking, but also trying to pull income from smoking. Wonderful.

I think the old concept of house parties is coming back.

Edited November 8, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter, I agree that -- for all my disagreements with Tracinski and the Speichers -- they have shown unusual courage and integrity in their stand on Peikoff's moronic and insulting attack on Objectivists who aren't enthusiastically endorsing and voting for Democrats. While I have no illusions that they would appreciate any praise from me, I want to be on record that they are to be commended for their intellectual independence.

Robert,

For what it is worth, I would also like to go on record in applauding the courage of Tracinski and the Speichers (and as you, I expect it is worth little to them coming from me). I have no idea of what is going on behind the scenes, and I imagine there is a lot--especially about the status of TIA as the major ARI-endorsed publication. But regardless, it takes guts and integrity to do what they are doing in that context. Bravo.

As to the DIM hypothesis, I have listened to 13 lectures do far. My impression is that Peikoff is trying to provide a basis for backing up Rand's contention that philosophy is the crucial element that shapes cultures and history (not just one of the main elements). I find Peikoff's basis to be correct for analyzing the integration fundamentals of a given philosophy (or intellectual approach), but the application is very eclectic in analyzing the results of the culture--and even of philosophy. He started by taking all Rand's weakest opinions on philosophers and adopted them as facts, which indicates to me an attempt to further justify (defend) her opinions, regardless of what they were. I have the impression that he doesn't want the slightest doubt to mar any detail of her intellectual/moral image and he is employing all means possible to ensure that--even to the point of erecting a complicated but flexible structure that can be used to "prove" it.

What will be VERY INTERESTING will be those who follow and uncover vastly different results using DIM. That's the problem with flexible systems. They can be used for ends not intended.

Personally, I find DIM to be very limited so far, but not at all a false or rationalistic analysis system--just the way it has been applied.

I do dispute the way many facts and events were presented in the lectures, even in fundamentals, but there was much that was good and interesting. To be clear, if you use a sound system to analyze a false or incomplete fact, you will get a false or incomplete result. The same observation holds for applying it to too broad an area.

Incidentally, in intellectual terms (not merely power games), I think I already know why Peikoff made his strange conclusion tying the act of voting Democrat to understanding Objectivism, but I want to wait until I hear the rest of the material before I discuss it.

As of Wednesday morning, it looks like most voters took Peikoff's advice. He may be more influential than we realized.

Dayaamm!

Thanks for that laugh, Pete.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I finally finished listening to the DIM course.

I will try to give my impressions later, but there is one thing I want to say right now. I had to hear it with my own ears to believe it, but I don't think Peikoff's proclamation about Objectivists who do not vote Democrat do not understand Objectivism had any political motivation, except maybe a very distant secondary one.

He really believes that. Really. What I heard at the end of the 15th lecture convinced me that he is perfectly incensed over the issue itself--not any particular person in the Objectivist world--and sincerely believes that a Christian theocracy is the biggest threat to the country. His forecast was a scenario of doom, but with hope. He holds that most Americans, not having any influence philosophically (thus not even falling within a DIM classification), do adhere to tradition and the USA has a tradition of not accepting dictators in the government.

His hatred of Bush was very apparent and the views he stated aligned perfectly with the libertarian take of Bush's flaws (even to the point of condemning the Iraq war), but he added religion as an ominous element and, of course, he was not anti-war--merely anti that particular war. He wanted the USA to go after Iran.

More later.

Michael