Robert Tracinski is no longer associated with ARI

[Bidinotto]

To answer both Robert and Ellen:

Yes, I think there are elements in Rand's works that can attract people with emotional problems, or -- absorbed uncritically -- can lead people, especially young people, in harmful directions. Here are a few:

1. Rand's perspectives about "moral compromise": There are a host of interrelated issues here, which I address in the talk that Robert Campbell mentions, "The Anatomy of Cooperation," the text of which is posted at the preceding link. Paranoia over moral inconsistency is not the same as a value-seeking attitude; yet this preoccupation is quite common in Rand, and hence in Objectivist circles. Rand's wonderful essay "Causality vs. Duty" brilliantly dissects this malady, but ironically, elements in her writing unfortunately contribute to the very duty-bound self-consciousness that her essay repudiates.

2. Social indignation and pessimism: These angry emotional subcurrents are most obvious and explicit in her notes for the never-written early story "The Little Street," her play Ideal, the closing comments in her "Introduction to The Romantic Manifesto," her notes for the projected novel To Lorne Dieterling, the character of Dominique Francon in The Fountainhead, the "tunnel disaster" scene in Atlas Shrugged, and many post-Atlas nonfiction essays. A negative expectancy about people, and a constant state of moral indignation about less-than-ideal social encounters, is no way to live a happy life. But what can readers be expected to absorb when Rand at times refers to the society around her as "an enemy world"?

3. "Moral sanctions" as weapons: Switching the focus in every social encounter from seeking personal values, to exercising a virtual duty to verbalize "moral judgments" at every turn, has been extremely harmful to many -- especially in conjunction with Rand's ideas about "moral compromise" and her social pessimism, mentioned above.

Face it: If you believe that most people are immoral and irrational, that any inconsistency constitutes a complete and irredeemable "breach of integrity," and that "failure to pass moral judgment" about the failings of others itself constitutes such a breach -- then how are you going to behave around others? You need travel no farther than certain other Objectivist blogs and websites to see the answer, in all its ugly excess.

Teenagers, who tend to feel angry, alienated, and isolated to begin with, are especially susceptible to such messages, whether explicit or subliminal. My own reading of Rand's works began in my teens, and I vividly recall the feelings of anger and self-righteousness that grew toward misanthropic rage as I absorbed, uncritically, the notions I've outlined above.

Let me EMPHASIZE that these unfortunate messages came as a "package-deal" along with a host of priceless, unrepeatable values: Rand's new conception of human heroism, morality, and idealism; her stunning answers to a host of philosophical questions that had tormented me since childhood; her extraordinary psychological insights, which helped me turn my life around; her invaluable training in critical thinking; her integrations of ideas that spanned vast, previously unrelated areas of knowledge; her introductions to new facts, issues, and fields of study that I had never dreamed of exploring; her ingenious stories and unprecedented characters, which caused me to laugh and weep and cheer, and which will remain burned into my consciousness to my dying day; and her providing me with an indispensable intellectual basis for my entire subsequent career as a writer.

My debts to Ayn Rand are beyond any measure.

So, do I therefore fault her for not being the perfect teacher or exemplar, or for imparting to me the occasional error or unfortunate attitude, which caused me later grief?

Hell, no. My mind and character were not her moral responsibility. She lived her own life and communicated her philosophy as well and honorably as she could -- and that was far, far better than almost anyone I am aware of or could even imagine.

And, did the tremendous values that I obtained from Ayn Rand more than offset any prices I paid by simultaneously absorbing the errors I described above?

Hell, yes. I will always treasure what I've gained from Ayn Rand; and if she ever led me astray, she also gave me the compass and the courage to chart my own path home.

All in all, I bear a debt of gratitude to her that could never be repaid.

Does that answer your questions?

[blackhorse]

Well said, Mr. Bidinotto. The "other" forums (i obviuosly don't need to name them) are exactly why I love posting here and at ROR, because the majority of the time everyone is civil and respectful. There's actually excitement about OBJECTIVISM and not wailing and gnashing of teeth at other people. Objectivism is the greatest philosophy ever, i like that I am able to learn more about it and study it with others here (thank you MSK and Kat) and elsewhere. Those other forums really give the Objectivist movement a bad name. I feel sorry for some individual new to Objectivism who happens upon some of those other websites, because although there are some intelligent thinkers and eloquent speakers, many of them are not good ambassadors of the philosophy. Tracinski is much better off apart from Peikoff...I mean ARI.

Edited December 22, 2006 by blackhorse

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have worked with people who are rich, honest, productive, as well as criminals of all stripes--murderers, child molesters, con men and thieves. I have never seen anyone incapable of rehabilitation...

Ken,

Amen.

The issue of rehabilitation and redemption is one that I focus on and intend to stay focused on from an Objectivist angle. I have met a lot of resistance with some of the more vocal hardliners, but I sincerely believe that most people believe as you just stated on some level. They just don't like being called scumbags in public, so they keep their peace. A true "silent majority" (to coin a phrase).

But there is the "definition game" (as Robert Ringer so aptly characterized it once), where people define things according to their own likes and dislikes. In this case, I have seen good people proclaim that no one is incapable of rehabilitation, EXCEPT FOR... X, Y or Z... Those people are beyond redemption.

(Notice that X, Y or Z have usually had personal involvement with the denouncer.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert B,

I echo all of your good sentiments about Rand and agree with the other observations, but I would like to add two of my own.

This first is about emotional contagiousness. At the very beginning of Emotional Intelligence by Goleman, he gives the example of a bus driver on a sweltering day talking about how such-and-such was interesting, how a good movie was playing over at the theater, how a good sale was being promoted at a store, how he hoped each of the passengers had a good day as they left, etc. He was a gushing source of good vibes in general and that attitude seemed to infect the other passengers so that the physical discomfort was not even noticed.

This happens often on the other end with what I call sourpusses. People are having a good time, then someone shows up and makes an emotionally charged pronouncement heavy on sarcasm or hatred and the good times turn into general irritation and anger. In popular jargon, this is called a buzzkill.

One of the characteristics of strongly expressed emotion is that it is contagious. I believe this has to do with the affects we are born with (as Steve Shmurak so brilliantly pointed out in a JARS essay, referenced on OL here).

Rand's writings contain long passages practically wallowing in a negative emotion of outrage or hatred. I believe that this emotion is contagious and this is one of the things that turns off her critics. But it affects her fans, also. As an admirer envisions himself emulating Rand, which is a completely natural wish when he admires someone, he has a very powerful model of raw arrogant loathing added among the things to emulate, with the arrogance even defended often as the good.

It is very easy to ape this emotional posture without doing any of the heavy thinking needed to get there. It's easy to ape Rand's phrases because a person "feels" she is right, so no thinking is needed, just acting. The itch to be like her is powerful stuff. Out comes the wholesale condemnations, pessimism, hatred, etc., with all the shallowness, contradictions and just plain boneheaded thinking that we are all used to seeing.

This is a trap that needs to be avoided in Objectivism as it is extremely common. We live in a wonderful world at one of the most exciting times ever in human history. It is a damn shame to miss it because we refuse to see it.

My second comment is simply a primary value judgment of choosing the good over the evil. In an email discussing my attitude to my parents, I mentioned their present limitations (both have had strokes), and the limitations of the nasty ignorant hillbilly culture they come from, but also all the good they did in life. If I were to react only on a short-term level and react to their limitations, I would condemn them and move on while burning that bridge. But I will not do that. I refuse to let the bad be more important than the good I have received and perceived and I now do what I can for them. (I intend to keep doing it, too).

I believe that this was a HUGE mistake Rand made (one that I have no intention of making). She allowed relationships of years and years of accumulated good be sacrificed because of something bad that happened. In essence, she gave more value to the one bad thing than the accumulated good of years. She paid the price, too: a very lonely old age.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Your comments about the effects on others of strongly expressed emotion are apropos here.

I know from my own experience that I would rather hang out with those of my coworkers who are habitually optimistic than with those who are habitually pessimistic. Now why would that be?

I also recall that in my undergraduate days, I privately referred to one of member of the Objectivist circle that I was associated with as "the metaphysical wet blanket," because of his flair at casting a morose pall on nearly any occasion.

Steven Shmurak's article is obviously relevant here. So are the writings of Marty Seligman, in particular Learned Optimism and Authentic Happiness.

This would be as good an occasion as any to respond to Brant's recent dismissal of psychology as bunk. Sure, psychology has a long way to go--which ought to be seen as an opportunity for discovery, not an occasion for hand-wringing. But the recommendations of Positive Psychology are subject to empirical test. Some of them have passed the test already.

Besides, the opinion that psychology is bunk is often featured at one of those message boards not known for frequent expressions of positive emotion. There might be a connection...

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Robert B,

I agree with you about all three of these themes:

(1) Paranoia over moral inconsistency

(2) Social indignation and pessimism

(3) Brandishing "moral sanction" as a weapon

and appreciate your succinct description of each.

The most important thing is to acknowledge that all of these themes are in Rand's writing. One can clip away the "unphilosophical" opinions, such as her speculations about "missing links," or her paeans to smoking, or her moral condemnation of homosexuality, or her opposition to women Presidents, and they will still be all over Rand's writing. If one is never willing to criticize Rand on anything of "philosophical significance," one will be stuck with all three.

What's more, the type of reader who has decided in advance that Rand is beyond criticism is unlikely to see how "Causality vs. Duty" undermines what Rand said elsewhere about moral compromises. He or she is far more likely to read it as authorizing the "premoral choice to live" or some other rationalistic doctrine.

Robert C

[Bidinotto]

The most important thing is to acknowledge that all of these themes are in Rand's writing.

Well, in citing those examples, I for one was certainly acknowledging their presence in Rand's writing. But along with all the towering good, too.

[John Dailey]

~ As 'heretics' get, yet again, identified, "Once more, into the breach dear friends! --- Uh, anyone still there? Hello?"

~ As someone mentioned, this IS getting so 'OLD.'

~ But, will someone explain something about this latest dis-association? I understand that, ostensibly, it's triggered by a perspective difference re interpretations on the role (priority?) of ideas in 'explaining' history.

I'm totally unclear as to where the idea itself OF 'ideas' explaining history is properly considered as derivable from O'ism, per se. If it is, I can see a 'quality-control' concern re what O'ism 'implies' thereby, and dis-agreers have to be expected to go bye-bye. However, which branch of O'ism has a sub-section called "Philosophy of History"? If none, differing perspectives call for no dis-association.

LLAP

J:D

[Ellen Stuttle]

Bob B., thanks for your replies, especially the lengthy reply in post #26; also for the brief answer to Robert Campbell in #32.

And thanks, Bob C., also.

I agree with the specifics cited, and think there are some others as well. I hope to come back to the subject after Christmas.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

~ As 'heretics' get, yet again, identified, "Once more, into the breach dear friends! --- Uh, anyone still there? Hello?"

~ As someone mentioned, this IS getting so 'OLD.'

~ But, will someone explain something about this latest dis-association? I understand that, ostensibly, it's triggered by a perspective difference re interpretations on the role (priority?) of ideas in 'explaining' history.

I'm totally unclear as to where the idea itself OF 'ideas' explaining history is properly considered as derivable from O'ism, per se. If it is, I can see a 'quality-control' concern re what O'ism 'implies' thereby, and dis-agreers have to be expected to go bye-bye. However, which branch of O'ism has a sub-section called "Philosophy of History"? If none, differing perspectives call for no dis-association.

LLAP

J:D

Re O'ism's "Philosophy of History": Um, the essay titled "For the New Intellectual," for instance? And that's not the only place, just the most immediately obvious.

Ellen

___

[jenright]

Re O'ism's "Philosophy of History": Um, the essay titled "For the New Intellectual," for instance? And that's not the only place, just the most immediately obvious.

I do think that's the best single source. For more detail, look at Peikoff's first book, The Ominous Parallels. Also, he gave a talk (later published) on "The Role of Philosophy and Psychology in History".

But I want I really want to ask about is: "(1) Paranoia over moral inconsistency". I'm figuring this is meant in a colloquial sense of "paranoia", rather than a technical sense. So it's something like: "Excessive concern over moral inconsistency." Would that be what was meant?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But I want I really want to ask about is: "(1) Paranoia over moral inconsistency". I'm figuring this is meant in a colloquial sense of "paranoia", rather than a technical sense. So it's something like: "Excessive concern over moral inconsistency." Would that be what was meant?

John,

I have some thoughts on that. I think the word paranoia was being used in the colloquial sense, but it goes much deeper than "excessive concern." Don't forget that one of the roots of paranoia is fear.

I am going by what I have read and what I have observed in interacting with people, but here is my take on it (and I refer only to these people in the following). The ones who were the loudest in damning others have shown a remarkable blindness in looking at their own shortcomings. I mention moral shortcomings in addition to errors of knowledge. That means dishonesty, lying to themselves, gross manipulation of others, etc.

I don't want this to become an online food-fight with people on other forums, so I don't want to cite specific instances, but I have noticed double standards running rampant among the habitual moral denouncers. These same people must know that they do not practice what they preach and that makes their denouncements against others more and more shrill as time goes on.

So in a bit of amateur psychologizing, I believe that people condemn others out of fear of seeing openly what is in their own hearts, minds and souls.

I understand Robert's use of "paranoia" to mean that.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

John,

Robert B is obviously in the best position to explain what he had in when he used the word "paranoia." I didn't take him to be intending it in a strict clinical sense.

Whatever the merits or demerits of "paranoid," I don't think that "excessive" is a strong enough adjective for what is going on. The inconsistencies that Michael noted are too frequent and too blatant. People with a well deserved reputation for underhanded behavior denounce others for ... underhanded behavior. People with hair-trigger moral judgments accuse others of... hair-trigger moral judgments.

Michael,

Amateur judgments about people's motives, concerning their manner of thinking or valuing or emotionally responding, are what everyone does, all the time. "Psychologizing," in Rand-land, is not meant to apply to all such judgments--only to those of which the speaker disapproves.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The discussion on SOLOP is now taking a weird turn.

The current defense of the Leonard Peikoff Institute maintains that Tracinski hasn't been purged, and that only inveterate haters of said Institute would ever use such a word to describe what has happened. The notion is even being floated that the disclaimer now attached to Tracinski's items on the Institute's website is routinely applied to all writers and speakers there... or to all former writers or speakers there... or something.

Mr. Valliant is back, making a declaration that the principals of LPI may well give him occasion to regret:

This time, the pathological knee-jerk against ARI has been caught in slow-mo. "Brushed aside"? "Purged"? Well, can the anti-ARI sleuths figure out why all such Republican-supporters haven't been "purged," then?

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2063#comment-25533

And Yaron Brook has apparently discovered a "glitch" that prevented Mr. Perigo from receiving the Institute's editorials for a couple of weeks.

Uh huh.

Robert Campbell

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Well, I guess now disavowal of Tracinski's What Went Right articles and his pajama epistemology is now another litmus test for being a Serious Objectivist TM. Fact and Value, the Reismans, Valliant's book and now Leonard Peikoff's philosophy of history have become Objectivist Holy Writ. If weren't so pathetic and sad, I'd laugh my ass off. More fodder for the Objectivist sheep.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert C,

I don't know about Tracinski on the Dark Side...

but...

on looking at SLOP, I do see the owner in guru-wannabe heaven. People are discussing his "courageous stand" against Peikoff's weird stand, or rebutting it, they are peppering their own posts using his coined terms and slang, they are acting foul-mouthed aggressively in a manner encouraged there, they are insulting each other over nothing, other guru-wannabes storm off in a huff, in short, they are discussing the owner and aping him without end.

A guru-wannabe does not need a large audience to be happy. Just any old audience that acts like this one and makes him the center of attention will do.

Ahh... It's a great day to be an Objectivist...

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Not only that, but the guru-wannabe is apparently important enough that Yaron Brook felt obliged to restore his steady feed of op-eds from the Leonard Peikoff Institute.

Wowie zowie,

Robert Campbell

[John Dailey]

~ Appreciate the response to my question about where, within O'ist philosophy , the Philosophy-of-History falls, but, I don't see the relevence of referring me to FTNI.

~ Maybe I didn't make myself clear: -> Where, in O'ism's Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics or Aesthetics, is a Philosophy-of-History derivable from, for a dis-association with disagreers to be based upon (as in, disagreeing with a tenet of 'the philosophy')?

LLAP

J:D

Edited December 23, 2006 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Addendum/Clarification:

~ I wasn't asking about where the idea is discussed by Rand in her varied delineational or explanatory writings that are adjuncts to AS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, FTNI is a meta-philosophy perspective, no? It's a view about the place of (of whatever kind) philosophy in man's life (and his study of such), which I find difficult to see as contained within (or derivable from/implied by) the philosophy...if you will...'proper.' As far as I can see, it's not so contained, unlike Philosophy-of-Mind which is sketched a bit in Galt's speech.

LLAP

J:D

Edited December 23, 2006 by John Dailey

[jenright]

Addendum/Clarification:

~ I wasn't asking about where the idea is discussed by Rand in her varied delineational or explanatory writings that are adjuncts to AS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, FTNI is a meta-philosophy perspective, no? It's a view about the place of (of whatever kind) philosophy in man's life (and his study of such), which I find difficult to see as contained within (or derivable from/implied by) the philosophy...if you will...'proper.' As far as I can see, it's not so contained, unlike Philosophy-of-Mind which is sketched a bit in Galt's speech.

LLAP

J:D

Now I see where you're coming from. It's a fair question. After all, how can Tracinski be disagreeing with the philosophy if he is just disagreeing with the history? I think the answer will be that metaphysics and epistemology include a view of man and his nature and an account of how he comes to act in the world. Just my guess. Tracinski humorously referred to his own approach as "Pajamas Epistemology," which suggests that he, too, sees his own approach as possibly revising a central subdiscipline of philosophy.

[John Dailey]

Jen:

~ Thank you for a...relevent...response.

~ Indeed, what you say re a 'guessing' at where such a 'meta'-view is justifiable from (for creating 'dis-associatings') summarizes my prob, hence my original, clearly shrugged-off, question.

~ One thing I agree is lacking in O'ism (not that Rand 'owed' it, explanatorily speaking, to anyone...unless they asked; and, no one ever did), the 'philosophy', is: Where can one find, within it 'proper', (need I name all categories again?) how to handle 'meta'-perspectives referring TO it's contents? Be such Philosophy-of-History, Philosophy-of-Mind, Philosophy-of-Sex, etc.

~ Then again, maybe all us O'ists really have a different idea of just...exactly...what the (so often said; so never defined) essentials of O'ism comprise? If so, such will definitely be a source of false assumptions about common bases re any further...debates...no?

Edited December 24, 2006 by John Dailey

[Bidinotto]

Robert Tracinski has finally broken his silence on his split with ARI.

While he indicates that he and ARI have not really been working closely for some time now, the most relevant line in his message is this: "Why they [ARI] chose to change that description [of my affiliation] now, and why they chose to do it in those particular words, I don't know."

Yeah. Sure. Right.

In fact, that sentence confirms exactly what I suspected: that the ARI public declaration of Tracinski's non-affiliation was the organization's none-too-subtle way of declaring: "Good riddance." Whether you wish to characterize that declaration as a "purge" or not seems a matter more semantic than substantive.

Incidentally, some of Tracinski's most recent essays on the impact of philosophical ideas and other influences on history have been exceptionally powerful and perceptive. I was particularly taken with a point he made about Aristotle coming at the end, rather than at the beginning, of Greek civilization -- and of the seminal role that art, rather than abstract philosophy, had in launching the period of Greek flourishing. I noted and discussed exactly the same point many years ago, in the mid-80s, in a lecture and essay in which I criticized the rationalistic, "trickle-down" theory of the impact of ideas from philosophers into the culture, a theory quite popular in Objectivist circles. The actual path of influence of ideas on culture is far, far more complex than that, and involves other factors as well. (For example, why did Enlightenment ideas originate in Europe -- yet find their full implementation and expression only in America? Why did Europe imagine, but America realize, the Enlightenment? Institutional and political factors apart from philosophy played a decisive role in this outcome. For details, see Henry Steele Commager's brilliant history, The Empire of Reason.)

I commend Tracinski for having the intelligence to perceive -- and the guts to discuss -- empirical subtleties that his dogmatic former associates either can't and won't.

For my extended comments on this latest Objectivist split, click here.

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; I have started receiving TIA and read Mr. Tracinski's latest statement. It sounds like he's not worried about these people. It sounds like he's reaching more people. I sounds like he's being successful in the real world as opposed to the Objectivist World. I hope he goes for it and never looks back.

[Roger Bissell]

Robert; I have started receiving TIA and read Mr. Tracinski's latest statement. It sounds like he's not worried about these people. It sounds like he's reaching more people. I sounds like he's being successful in the real world as opposed to the Objectivist World. I hope he goes for it and never looks back.

Amen, Brother Chris. And Robert -- or someone -- would you please keep us posted when Mr. T. posts the final installment of his four-parter on ideas & history? Thanks in advance!

REB