Robert Tracinski's article "What Went Right"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Shayne,

I agree that some individuals have appeared who have subjectivist leanings.

Just because they are allowed to grapple with their ideas here, and interact with others who both criticize their thinking (in good will) and push them hard to think through their positions (once again, in good will), that does not make OL a subjectivist leaning forum. I would characterize it that way if the purpose of the site were to present all this as a course in Objectivism. But it isn't.

Strangely enough, in this respect I agree with Boeckmann that an Internet forum is not the best place to learn the philosophy. Rand's works are.

I also include some other writings by other authors like the original essays in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist. For later writings, I favor those of David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden and Chris Sciabarra (and some others, especially here on OL) for the way they have built on the basic principles. Historically, of course, I favor Barbara's biography, but Britting's little book was very charming (and there are some others). I have only read parts of OPAR, so I reserve my judgment so far. Up to now, I have liked some things and am critical of others. On Objectivist lectures, I have only gone through one of Peikoff's lectures (The DIM Hypothesis) and I was not favorably impressed. I cannot comment on the other lectures Boeckmann mentioned. If I go by what he, himself, did in that post he made on Hsieh's site, I certainly am not interested in his own lectures.

I also favor reading the works of intelligent people who are critical of Objectivism. It is important to face solid criticism from intelligent thinkers. This is a strong ally in not allowing the more rhetorical parts of Rand's writings encourage a cult-like environment in one's thinking.

I cannot comment on Tracinski's recent works that are causing so much trouble because I only skimmed the first essay, but many people I respect speak highly of them. I personally intend to read them with care and I suspect that his writing is built solidly on Objectivist principles.

With all that out there to read, I agree that OL (or any other Internet forum) is not the best place to learn Objectivism. But I would say OL is an excellent place to whet one's appetite for learning it, to test and challenge one's understanding of it through interaction with others, and to work on expanding on it.

EDIT - I just saw your last comment you edited in. Frankly your new observations are too subjective to address. I don't agree with your characterizations and your baiting is not productive. And there is no US against THEM war going on.

Michael

[Laure]

As for Diana Hsieh's post, well, it's not hard to see the agenda and it's about as subtle as a 2x4 over the head. Most sensible people have simply learned to step out of the way and now she's preaching to the choir.

No kidding, James. Lately she does little more than "jockeying for position", it seems.

[sjw]

Frankly your new observations are too subjective to address.

Isn't what's really subjective is your arbitrary line about what is and isn't an "insult", and your arbitrary policy of permitting harsh insults to be waged against other forums while not permitting the relatively mild criticism I gave without threats of post deleting? You speak of tribalism--well isn't this behavior exactly that? I can only speak my mind when I attack the other tribe but not the local tribe? (heck, I can't even say there's subjectivist leanings around here...)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You speak of tribalism--well isn't this behavior exactly that? I can only speak my mind when I attack the other tribe but not the local tribe?

Shayne,

There is no local tribe and OL is private property. I will not have you insult my regular guests here and I will not have you insult me.

Incidentally, I do not agree with this whole subjectivist/intrinsicist dichotomy. There are many fine thinkers at ARI from what I have observed, but there is a tribal element I detest that many promote. The more I hear the subjectivist/intrinsicist terms used to characterize people, the more I think "collectivism."

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

...Hsieh has once again struck a mighty blow for the integrity of the Church of Rand, this time aided by Tore Boeckmann. They are slicing up the Speichers for lunch and having a grand old time...Incidentally, in the middle of this brawling, the valiant Warriors of Reason are floating the idea that they are the philosopher-kings (or represent the same)...

Tore Boeckmann may not affect the persona of a "philosopher-king," but he has certainly represented himself as one who has faithfully presented Rand's ideas on aesthetics in his edition of her lectures on fiction writing. However, as I pointed out in an article on The Daily Objectivist about 7 years ago, his efforts fall more than a bit short of what he claimed. See my piece (and the following discussion) here on OL: A Critical Note on the Boeckmann Transcript.

REB

[Bidinotto]

Yes, the ARI wars continue to escalate -- again, predictably (follow this thread).

If these people want to refute past criticisms by me and by others, why don't they stop supplying us with more footnotes?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Thanks, Roger for the note on Tore Boeckmann and the book on fiction writing under his editorship. I have not read the fiction writing book. This points up systemic problems with ARI's scholarship that seems to be a recurring problem that Chris Sciabarra has commented on in the past.

Another problem within Objectivism, especially when it comes to areas in the hard sciences is a lack of respect for the peer review process. Stephen Speicher and Lewis Little have touted Little's Theory of Elementary Waves in quantum mechanics that has at least two competent rebuttals online from physicists who are also Objectivist or Objectivist-leaning. Here is one from Tom Radcliffe:

Tom Radcliffe on TEW

In general, in the hard sciences a good rule of thumb is that good science will peer-reviewed and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Jim

[Roger Bissell]

Stephen Speicher wrote:

I'm so disgusted with the outrageous and unjust attacks on Noodlefood against me, Betsy, and THE FORUM, that I just have to vent. ...Noodlefood is a topsy-turvy world, where the ideas of Objectivism are being subverted daily by those who claim allegiance to the philosophy but engage in the same tactics as the enemies of Objectivism. You can take the girl out of the TOC, but apparently you cannot take the TOC out of the girl....We have the spectacle of a supposed Objectivist intellectual who in the name of the philosophy writes an entire article composed of one long smear, unleashing and licensing an assortment of malcontents to engage in the same....Apparently, when some "intellectuals" cannot argue the facts, the smear becomes their intellectual weapon of choice.

Isn't that interesting! TOC is counted among the "enemies of Objectivism," yet it is those supposed "enemies" (including Chris Sciabarra) who have been subjected to the same "outrageous and unjust attacks" by Noodlefoodians as were Stephen and Betsey. I don't know when I've ~EVER~ seen TOC people engage in the vicious kind of smearing that Diana & Co. have indulged in. Yet, that seems to be TOC's reputation among the ARI faction, even those now apparently on their way out. TOC has been ~SO~ demonized and distorted by ARI that Stephen and Betsey and their allies apparently cannot even recognize it as their natural ally in this depressing fiasco.

<sigh>

REB

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Roger,

Exactly!

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

When Hsieh was at TOC, she did a pretty hard number on ARI (and (Peikoff). See her past work. It is archived on her site. I don't agree with Spreicher's comment about taking the girl out of TOC but not TOC out of the girl. I think it is more the scorpion and the frog.

This story is in many forms on the Internet, but here is a cute one that is fitting:

One day a scorpion wants to get across a stream. Not being able to swim, he searches for a way over until exhausted. Then a frog comes by, on his way across the stream. The scorpion says to the frog, "Hey are you going across? I can't find a way over and I'm so tired. Can I please ride on your back, as I really need to get across too!"

The frog replies, "What? Are you crazy? You're just going to sting me so you can eat me!"

The scorpion replies, "Now why would I want to do that? Then we'd both drown in the stream."

The frog replies, "Oh yeah. I guess there's no point in stinging me if I'd die while you're on my back, and you'd die too. So okay, hop aboard!"

Mid-way across the stream, the scorpion stings the frog.

The frog says as the poison starts to paralyze him and they both start to sink, "Why did you do that? Now we're both going to die! Stupid scorpion!!!"

The scorpion replies, "I'm a scorpion, I can't help it, that's what I do!"

TOC... ARI... wherever and whenever... it doesn't matter. Some people try to sting others because they can't not try to sting others. This is impossible for them since stinging others is their purpose for being. I suspect the nastiness is chosen at an early age, but I'll go with innate in some cases. And like good scorpions, I suspect when they run out of others to sting, they sting themselves.

From what I have read so far, this story also applies to Mr. Spreicher.

Michael

[Laure]

Michael, was Diana employed by TOC? Is she employed by ARI now? I'm just curious, as I don't think it's entirely fair to judge the groups she is affiliated with because of her actions. It's as if she used to live in Idaho, so we said "Man, those Idahoans are mean!" then she moves to Colorado and we say "You can't take Idaho out of the girl!"

Cute scorpion story, but I don't think she "can't help it." I think it's a combination of a mindset that thinks it's immoral to be nice, and a desire to use politics to attain a position of authority in the "movement."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Laure,

I agree with you about judging the organizations. Spreicher was wrong to do that, and this is why I think the scorpion tale goes for him as well. I personally lay the responsibility for nastiness squarely at the feet of the nasty individual, Objectivist or otherwise.

To answer your questions about Hsieh's employment, from what I understand, she did some work for TOC (and she was NB's webmaster for a spell) way back when. Now she is studying, but one of her official contributors on Noodlefood, Don Watkins, is on the staff of ARI, so there definitely is a sanctioned affiliation.

Of course, the "can't help it" thing was a bit tongue in cheek, but I have observed that some people are ornery by natural disposition. I once heard that Chihuahuas and some other breeds of dog are high-strung because their skulls are too small for the size of their brains. This gives them constant headaches.

It's a thought...

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

Most of us who have been at TOC for any length of time have known and liked Diana. Most of this was a surprise to everybody. In fact, I had really been away from Objectivism for about 5 years when her defection happened in 2004. I was busy being newly married and doing a fab startup with Intel. In a strange way her defection got me to look at some of TOC's new philosophy of science and cognitive science offerings that were right down my alley.

In any case, even having been to 5 of the TOC Summer Seminars that she went to, I don't feel qualified to make the kind of statements you're making. In any case, I think it's likely that there is a distorted image of people on both sides of the ARI/TOC divide. I think she was probably very surprised to find that the everyday reality of people at ARI was very different than what she had been told. I found ARI folks to be very pleasant if a little bit set in their ways and unwilling to discuss some uncomfortable topics.

In any case, I don't like the online persona I see from Diana and the only explanation I can think of is a profound sense of disillusionment and disappointment. There comes a time in your development as an Objectivist where there is no longer anyone to look to for answers. It can be a lonely feeling. The question is what do you do at that point? Do you make your world smaller or do you confront the unknown?

Jim

Edited February 8, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

To be fair, I am only judging the lass during the TOC phase from the things I have read on her site. (See her critique of OPAR and Peikoff in general for example.) I never met her. I don't ever care to, either.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

To be fair, I am only judging the lass during the TOC phase from the things I have read on her site. (See her critique of OPAR and Peikoff in general for example.) I never met her. I don't ever care to, either.

Michael

Michael,

Fair enough. A lot of this online stuff is alien to me. I go to an Objectivist club meeting every two weeks and I get along with everybody. I just learned that one of my friends from college who is an Objectivist and who I also used to play chess with every Saturday when I worked in Silicon Valley lives in Phoenix and I didn't even know it :-).

Jim

[Charles R. Anderson]

For the most part, I believe that Diana was associated with TOC because she chose at one time to be a member and chose to attend its seminars. I am no more aware of her being approved by TOC as a spokesperson than I am. Though I have been a member of IOS, TOC, and now TAS for years, no one has ever reviewed my statements on-line and pronounced judgment on me. I have had the occasional compliment on a particular post, but I am sure there are many among my posts that no one at TOC/TAS would wish to adopt as the TOC/TAS viewpoint. Fortunately, I am allowed to be an independent thinker and to attend TOC/TAS seminars and events, despite being an individualist. Come to think of it, TOC/TAS seems to think that individualism is important, despite being occasionally untidy!

Values are neither intrinsic nor subjective, but since values must be held by an individual, they must be defined in terms of an individual life. Michael Stuart Kelly and I cannot share the same values, even if we were the most rational possible people. For one thing, my sense of rhythm makes it impossible for me to be a conductor. Perhaps there is some reason why he would not function well as a materials physicist/engineer/chemist. If we were alike in our values, then either Kat or Anna would have a problem. But, the fact that values are very individual does not mean they must be subjective. In fact, the only way they can be objective is if they are consistent with the reality of our individuality.

Most of us who come to OL, and indeed most people who go to any of the Objectivist oriented forums, earn a living in some profession other than philosophy. Our interest in philosophy is as an aid in living our individual life, which is busily populated with many other activities. We are not experts on Objectivism, but we may be experts on the subject of our own life. We come here to learn a bit more about Objectivism, but many of us come here even more for the purpose of being able to communicate with others who share far more of our values and interests than our next-door neighbors or our co-workers are likely to. We are interested in how other individualists who share some of our values and a commitment to reason view the many topics of discussion here. We respect their different perspectives and experiences in life and we learn from this exposure. Oftentimes we find a great joy in identifying the values we share, though we may have arrived at an appreciation of that value by very different life experiences. For instance, no one's childhood could be more different in many respects than Angie's and mine. Despite that, we see many things in a similar way, but with many richly different nuances of meaning.

And, of course, this idea that Objectivism is a philosophy for living one's life is exactly what Objectivist Living was set up as a forum to promote. In my opinion it has been run in a manner fully consistent with that purpose and should not be criticized for not being the Philosophy Department of Ayn Rand University.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More Objectivist dirty laundry comes out.

I am putting it here for future reference. As the saying goes (while cupping the right hand behind the right ear and leaning forward intently in syrupy sincerity:

"Confession is good for the soul."

Apparently the Tore Boeckmann letter on Hsieh's site was preceded by a "whispering campaign" in a letter by the very same Boeckmann dated January 21, 2007 and e-mailed to various people in the ortho-Objectivist world. Here is the allegation and charges and request for permission to post it over yonder.

Also, in the middle of the brawling, I became aware of some righteous bickering in 1999 (lasting about 6 months) with a person named Keith Weiner (who uses the pseudonym Bearster) and others on an old Usernet site. Here is an overview of pertinent links, although the person who provides them has a dog in the fight and has a nasty little bark himself. I read through some of that stuff and it made me sick—on both sides.

Does anybody notice that whenever there is a schism or lots of nastiness in O-Land, there is a Conceptual Common Denominator? ARI is always somewhere nearby or is directly involved.

(That was a quip, but it is so true that I say it with more than a touch of sadness.)

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ah yes, the ARI whispering campaigns and the undernet. Never ventured onto the undernet. I think the last time I posted something on Usenet was back in 1996. I also remember when Robert Stubblefield called people in the Kelley camp "snarling wimps" on the Objectivist Study Group List. Given he was actually the publisher of The Intellectual Activist at one point, I am glad that Tracinski took it over.

Jim

[Bidinotto]

There's some misinformation in this thread about the status of certain people as "spokespersons" for TAS (previously TOC.)

Over the past 17 years, hundreds and hundreds of people have attended and/or spoken at our seminars and conferences. None of them, except for a handful of staff members, were ever "spokespersons" or "representatives" for the organization. And even presentations by staff members often dealt with new and sometimes speculative ideas and theories, and thus did not necessarily represent any "official position" of the organization.

Let's clarify this matter of "spokespersons" and "representatives." TAS seminars are forums to which we invite qualified individuals to speak about Objectivism and related topics -- and, we hope, to provide new insights and innovative, thought-provoking extensions. Consistent with a philosophy of reason and individualism, and consistent with this "forum" format, we encourage fresh thinking and spirited debate at these events. Unlike some groups, TAS does not demand of speakers lockstep agreement with us on all points of philosophy. Nor do invited speakers represent or speak for the organization: they represent only their own views.

Therefore, the appearance of someone as a lecturer at our events should only be assumed to imply that we found that person's lecture proposal to be interesting and potentially stimulating to seminar attendees. Anyone who has ever attended our events knows that speakers frequently disagree with us, with each other, and with their audiences. But (again, unlike some groups) we treat our attendees as mature adults capable of making up their own minds about the merits of a presentation.

We believe that this approach encourages valuable intellectual cross-fertilization, creative thinking, and a constant "check your premises" attitude that can only strengthen Objectivism. However, it's obviously not an approach that all people find comfortable. Those who seek intellectual security rather than enlightenment -- who are looking to close intellectual doors rather than open them -- usually gravitate to groups more suited to their intellectual ambitions.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Robert,

Thanks for taking the time to write the thoughtful post above. Every year, TAS does a terrific job of creating an atmosphere of comraderie at the Summer Seminar, even among many people who disagree. Anyone who hasn't been to a Summer Seminar should go just to experience the intelligent, benevolent and yes often strong-willed people who attend :-). IOS rekindled my interest in Objectivism after experiencing a movement that was mired in conformity. No, many of us don't speak for TAS, but it is a place we call home.

Jim

[Charles R. Anderson]

Robert and James,

Well said. Thanks.

[Chris Grieb]

Robert, James & Charles; Let me second the emotion about Summer Seminars.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's some misinformation in this thread about the status of certain people as "spokespersons" for TAS (previously TOC.)

Robert,

I fully agree with the rest of the post where this quote is from. OL is practically a mirror of this approach. But your observation above confuses me. I reread all the posts to see if anyone here was granting anyone else status as a spokesperson for TAS. I didn't see anything. The only thing close I saw was Spreicher's comment that was discussed about not being able to take the TOC out of the girl. All of the posters on this thead who commented on this criticized it.

Back a few days Shayne made the following comment:

By expecting Objectivist converts, the enterprise takes on an inherently religious aspect. The next logical question becomes: what is Objectivism, who is a true Objectivist (and Robert your side does this too--if you're not a "tolerant" Objectivist then you're not one). We start contesting the Legacy of Ayn Rand and calling the other side sinners or some such. And corrupting the philosophy by eviscerating it from moral judgement--well it's not going to save the world by tip-toeing around evil and refusing to call it that (unless it's the "evil" of "intolerance"). What evil needs is a slap in the face not "tolerance".

There are some negative insinuations that could be construed with this, but I don't think this is what you were talking about.

So what misinformation were you talking about? Spriecher's comment? Nobody thinks Hsieh was ever a spokesperson for TAS from what I read if that is the issue. I am sincerely confused.

Michael

[Bidinotto]

Combined, posts #85, 86, and 87 above could be easily construed by readers to infer that there was an employment or "official" staff status. I'm just clarifying: that wasn't the case.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Combined, posts #85, 86, and 87 above could be easily construed by readers to infer that there was an employment or "official" staff status. I'm just clarifying: that wasn't the case.

Robert,

LOL...

I would like to say "gotcha!" but nobody was trying to tease you. I certainly understand you wanting to make it VERY CLEAR that Hsieh was never on the staff at TAS. If I were you, I would be a bit antsy about that, too.

My own understanding is that Hsieh studied at TAS programs and gave some lectures, or at least one that I am aware of. Ironically it was on forgiveness (if my information is correct).

On another note, there is something I would like to comment on regarding Tore Boeckmann's observations about the best way to learn Objectivism. He says the best way is to learn it from the experts in the field, starting with Rand, of course, then going on to lectures and a moderated email list. But what do you do when the experts disagree? (Hat tip to John Dailey for that question.) You have to go somewhere to help hash it out.

This is where I think Internet forums are ideal. There is one part to learning Objectivism that you will not get from the books or just thinking: watching how people act when they claim to be Objectivists and interacting with them. What type of person do you become when you adopt Objectivism? Internet forums are perfect concrete methods of "show and tell" for how Objectivism is implemented in the lives of actual people.

I once read a book called The Living Company by Arie de Geus. He did many studies for Shell on employees. Recording and analyzing behavior at training seminars were part of his studies. His conclusion was that a great deal of learning did not come from the lectures themselves, but from the coffee breaks where the employees intermingled. He called this "flocking." He also noticed that learning in groups by intermingling also takes place with animals.

So I would like to revise my statement that I agree with Boeckmann about not learning Objectivism from Internet forums. A great deal about Objectivism can be learned on an Internet forum, especially the part that is usually learned in flocking, and as a laboratory for observing and interacting with Objectivists.

Michael