Robert Tracinski's article "What Went Right"

[Dragonfly]

Technically, Dragonfly is an incorrigible reductionist, a world-class painter, engineer, musician, Rand admirer (but he would rather die than admit it), Dennet advocate, probably a gourmet cook, some other goodies, and he is my friend (online only so far).

A few corrections... a physicist isn't the same as an engineer (although I get the impression that Rand didn't know the difference either), "Dennett" is spelled with two "t's", although my taste in food is not quite banal, I wouldn't call myself a gourmet cook, and about Rand, well... I do admire her talent as a writer, although I've become much more critical of her writings than in the past. In one sense her purely technical skill as a writer increased significantly from We the Living via The Fountainhead to Atlas Shrugged, but this was counteracted by the fact that her ideological message became increasingly important and shrill, leading to more and more preaching, philosophical speeches and increasingly unrealistic, one-dimensional persons and unrealistic events and situations. In short: Rand the ideologue killed Rand the writer. Twenty years ago I found AS by far her best book, now I think the best compromise between the two opposing trends in her writing is to be found in The Fountainhead. About her philosophy: I found the notion of a rational egoism, capitalism, independent thinking an inspiring vision, but when I was confronted with the many nasty, rigid and pompous defenders of her ideas on the Internet, I decided to have a closer look at her theories, and I found them full of holes. She may have been clever in a street-wise sense, but she wasn't really a great thinker, and the more the orthodox people insist that she was a genius and the greatest philosopher of all time, the greater my doubts become. If those people are representative for her philosophy, well, thanks but no thanks. Who wants to be allied with a Fred Weiss? That doesn't mean that I judge a philosophy only by the character of its followers, I see enough problems in the theory itself, some of which I have mentioned in earlier posts on this forum and in other forums, which is not the best way to become popular in Objectivist circles, although I'm glad to say that at least on OL there is more toleration for dissenting opinions (which makes it of course a horrible cesspool in the eyes of the randroids).

His only real defect appears that he is Dutch...

Well, if that is the worst you can say about me, I'm flattered...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It should be mentioned that Tracinski appeared on Speicher's forum and made two posts. The first post is here on the thread Response To Charges Against THE FORUM. The following quote jumped out at me:

By the way, I disagree with those who say this is primarily a matter of manners and civility (though that certainly is part of the issue). Perhaps I have a clearer perspective on this because I have spent the last few months having abuse heaped on my head, not just by those with a grudge or an ax to grind, but by total strangers, former business associates, people whom I have met once briefly and treated with the utmost politeness, and even by a few old friends—in short, by people with no normal motive for personal hostility.

The second post is here on the thread Rob Tracinski on "What Went Right?".

It is to the credit of the Speichers that they run a good forum where someone like Tracinski feels comfortable enough to come out and post his own experiences and thoughts in the middle of hostilities (ones that he did not initiate or wish to engage in). So rather than quote them at length, I encourage everyone to read his posts at the links provided.

However, there is one MAJOR disagreement I have with Tracinski's analysis. He is far too generous with his attackers. He basically states that there is lack of leadership by Objectivist intellectuals in setting a good example (and this is easily refuted by TAS, just to cite one case, but maybe he was talking about "some" Objectivist intellectuals and not others), and that the real issue of contention seems to be disagreement by the orthodoxy (not his term) with the fact that some topics are discussed at all by Objectivists.

Like I said, he is far too generous with these people. What he misses is the whole cult factor and that the name of the game is POWER. Now that he (and the Speichers) are on the other side of the fence, not because they wanted to fall out with anybody but simply because they wanted to use their own minds and they were expelled to that side of the fence, I sincerely hope they will reevaluate a great deal of what they have lived before all this happened.

After all, what is happening to them, as given in the Tracinski quote above, is nothing new. This has happened with the Brandens, Kelley, Reisman, etc. The Conceptual Common Denominator keeps coming back over and over again: a demand for loyalty over honest thinking (before with Rand herself, now with ARI and Peikoff).

I sincerely hope they ask themselves whether the orthodoxy changed and became nasty only in their specific case, or whether it always was that way and they just didn't see it. And if they decide they didn't see it before, I sincerely hope they ask themselves what is the use of a structure where such things occur repeatedly as an example of the good.

Isn't Objectivism supposed to be a philosophy for living on earth? How is THAT living on earth correctly?

Michael

PS - I forgot to mention, hat tip to William Scott Scherk for bringing this up elsewhere.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

Terrific post. The Speichers is spelled without an r. Tracinski is almost certainly of Polish extraction as opposed to a Russian with a y at the end. You can get mugged in Chicago for mixing those up .

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James,

Good God!

Thank you for the corrections. I wasn't paying attention and my inner Social Metaphysician took over the spelling. (I corrected it. Edit: I also corrected the Dennett with 2 "t's" in an earlier post. That little sucker has been busy.)

Freudian slip or evasion? That is the question...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

A few corrections... a physicist isn't the same as an engineer (although I get the impression that Rand didn't know the difference either) [...].

Just a point of curiosity: I wonder where you got that impression. As far as I recall she did know the difference -- e.g., I'd don't recall any indications of her confusing Larry's being a physicist for his being an engineer. Are you thinking of some textual reference?

Ellen

___

Edited February 14, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

Just a point of curiosity: I wonder where you got that impression. As far as I recall she did know the difference -- e.g., I'd don't recall any indications of her confusing Larry's being a physicist for his being an engineer. Are you thinking of some textual reference?

I was thinking of John Galt. And also of Rearden, an industrialist who also single-handed discovered a new alloy with exceptional properties. It's a bit the same idea that all those heroes in Galt's Gulch were excellent theorists and skilled workers at the same time. A brilliant philosopher must of course also make the best hamburgers, etc.

[reason.on]

The Conceptual Common Denominator keeps coming back over and over again: a demand for loyalty over honest thinking (before with Rand herself, now with ARI and Peikoff).

Come now, let's be honest; isn't it really a demand for loyalty over thinking at all? So far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a "thoughtful" or "honest" critique of ARI or LP. All disagreements or alternative points of view are heresy.

No one "debates" ARI or LP; they are simply corrected or dismissed.

RCR

Edited February 14, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Chris Grieb]

I recently brought Tracinski's Writing Letters to the Editor from ARI Bookstore. It is three lectures and I have only heard the first one and part of the second. I have found it excellent. Dragonfly and Michael; Thanks for the post about Peikoff physics. I want to look further at them before I comment but thank you both.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Just a point of curiosity: I wonder where you got that impression. As far as I recall she did know the difference -- e.g., I'd don't recall any indications of her confusing Larry's being a physicist for his being an engineer. Are you thinking of some textual reference?

I was thinking of John Galt. And also of Rearden, an industrialist who also single-handed discovered a new alloy with exceptional properties. It's a bit the same idea that all those heroes in Galt's Gulch were excellent theorists and skilled workers at the same time. A brilliant philosopher must of course also make the best hamburgers, etc.

Ah. I think her idea with both Galt and Rearden was that they had some practical goal in mind and needed to come up with basic physics to get what they wanted. A similar incident was Francisco's wanting to rig a pulley system to get to the top of the rock from which he, Dagny and Eddie were diving into the Hudson, so he came up with the basic idea of calculus in addressing his practical problem. Rearden did have some help -- his hand-picked staff. ;-)

Ellen

___

[reason.on]

Einstein does make an effort to reduce matter and space to mathematics. Matter is reducible to fields, which are defined by equations. Space is [studied?] by geometry.

I'm sorry, but the more I read this the more irritated I become, and the more LP's words seem like unambiguous insanity. "Einstein" made an effort to *reduce* matter and space to mathematics?? How does this even make sense at all? Einstein made an extraordinary effort to DESCRIBE various aspects of reality WITH mathematics (as did Newton). Mathematics is merely the language of description. Does LP suggest we return to theories of the ether, in order to fit more perfectly with his madness? Further, would anyone suggest that Ayn Rand tried to reduce matter and space to WORDS?

Also, maybe I'm off, but isn't it a hell of a lot more accurate to say that "fields" are defined by their various observable interactions with reality, and those interactions are described by mathematical equations? LP makes it sound as if "fields" are some arbitrary construct (like unicorns) with no observational basis at all.

GAK!

RCR

Edited February 14, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Ellen Stuttle]

My belief is that Leonard Peikoff has long had the desire to make a case of intellectual corruption against modern physics. I remember, clear back in late '69 or early '70, Leonard's trying to get negative stuff about relativity from Larry. (This was during some lunch conversations at which I was present. Larry was doing computer work for the Registrar's Office at Brooklyn Poly for a few years before he went to Temple to puruse a Ph.D.) Leonard had the view that of course modern physics has to be corrupt, because Kant has to have corrupted every area of modern thought. I think Leonard has tried over the years to get enough of a grasp of physics to construct a case. Lew Little might have seemed a promising source of support for awhile, but I gather that Lew's TEW (theory of elementary waves) has been criticized even by Ortho folks with some knowledge of physics. Harriman seems to be just the ticket to provide Leonard with material which Leonard finds convincing.

Ellen

___

[reason.on]

My belief is that Leonard Peikoff has long had the desire to make a case of intellectual corruption against modern physics. I remember, clear back in late '69 or early '70, Leonard's trying to get negative stuff about relativity from Larry. (This was during some lunch conversations at which I was present. Larry was doing computer work for the Registrar's Office at Brooklyn Poly for a few years before he went to Temple to puruse a Ph.D.) Leonard had the view that of course modern physics has to be corrupt, because Kant has to have corrupted every area of modern thought. I think Leonard has tried over the years to get enough of a grasp of physics to construct a case. Lew Little might have seemed a promising source of support for awhile, but I gather that Lew's TEW (theory of elementary waves) has been criticized even by Ortho folks with some knowledge of physics. Harriman seems to be just the ticket to provide Leonard with material which Leonard finds convincing.

So...is LP trying to Frankenstein together a new theory of gravity; one which suits his tastes better? Or is he just trying to "logically" poke holes in Einstein's work?

How anyone can believe that all of thought can be "objectively" reduced down to three simple categories by way of normative "good, bad, and evil" judgments is beyond me (DIM). And doesn't the whole "geist" of this theory-of-everything place LP--himself--as the ultimate arbiter of what reality is, and consequently where any given "idea" fits into the model, and thus its true "objective" validity and relevance to the world? I mean, COME ON. Because something, anything, doesn't "integrate" with LP's philosophic understanding of the nature of "reality", it is invalid or worse evil? The theory is a model for brainwashing, not a critical understanding of reality; I'm sure Jim Jones would have loved the idea.

Furthermore, on the surface, it seems a ridiculously reductionist project even more misguided than most Skinner-esque behavioralist attempts. I'm just curious, and I know this is pure speculation, but does anyone here think Ayn Rand would have sanctioned "DIM"?

I think not.

RCR

Edited February 15, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm just curious, and I know this is pure speculation, but does anyone here think Ayn Rand would have sanctioned "DIM"?

I think not.

I don't know. For one thing, I'm not conversant with the details of DIM -- and am not planning to become conversant, either; I'm not interested in listening to those lectures.

If they're as ghastly bad as some say they are, maybe...she wouldn't have bought the thesis. But she is the one herself who set Kant up as arch-fiend antipode to her philosophy; and I think she was still alive when Leonard wrote that bit in OPAR about the horrors of Nazi totalitarianism being inevitable given Kant.

Ellen

CORRECTION: The last sentence is confused; the book I meant was The Ominous Parallels, and I'm just about sure she was still alive when Leonard finished that book. It's copyrighted 1982. She died March 6, 1982; thus the book might not have appeared in print before her death -- I don't know the official publication month. But her introduction is dated "November 1980." The typical publishing procedure is not to date an introduction prior to the author's finishing the text.

___

Edited February 16, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christian,

In an interview with Kira Peikoff dated February, 2006, LP stated about the DIM Hypothesis:

"Personally, I have to tell you that it will be a tremendous satisfaction for one reason--I don't know if you want to print this--but this is the first book that I've ever written that I did not learn anything from other people," Peikoff said. "It's entirely my ideas--not from teachers, reading or Ayn."

In light of this statement, it is difficult to judge whether Ayn Rand would have sanctioned it or not.

I personally think that, were Rand still alive, this hypothesis would exist but in a much different form of development, and (were she to stay alive) it would not get completed within Peikoff's own lifetime. There would be too many rewrites.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I haven't spent and won't spend a lot of time with LP's DIM, but I've read the description and seen a number of applications. The model alone is enough for me; Good integrators, bad integrators (non-agreement), blah...

I halfway think he finally felt enough impetus to jump on the wagon because there are ever so many people out there really working on integration. As far as I can tell he's not integrating: what he's doing is filtering or channeling things through (or maybe I mean "at") ortho- O-ism. It's more of explanation than integration, and there's a big effing difference between those two things.

Ken Wilber is a much stronger integrator. Much stronger. His models are much more inclusive, elegant, and, above all, he clearly knows and talks about how fiercely difficult working with integration actually is.

LP rolled out this thing and it's really not much, compared to other contemporary integrators.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Dragonfly]

I think Leonard has tried over the years to get enough of a grasp of physics to construct a case. Lew Little might have seemed a promising source of support for awhile, but I gather that Lew's TEW (theory of elementary waves) has been criticized even by Ortho folks with some knowledge of physics. Harriman seems to be just the ticket to provide Leonard with material which Leonard finds convincing.

Monica Pignotti told me in 2002 that Peikoff got physics lessons from Harriman:

Peikoff was not doing mere "armchair philosophizing". He made a huge

effort by spending years taking private tutorials in physics, with 4-

5 hour sessions once a week (per his statement in his talk at the

Ford Hall Forum).

and someone else on the Branden list wrote at about the same time:

I think your interpretation of Peikoff's quote is accurate.

As to whether he has changed his views, all I know is what I heard

when I went to Ford Hall Forum last year. Peikoff was discussing the

book he is working on. As I remember, someone asked if he thought

the Big Bang theory was incorrect, and Peikoff said he did, but that

he was still studying physics so he can refute it.

That's quite revealing: he already knows the answer, but now he has to undertake a study to prove it!

He still hasn't learned much in all those years, as he admits in his DIM lecture that he has to depend on Harriman for nearly everything he says about physics and for answering (quite general) questions from the audience. And in view of Harriman's contributions to the lecture this is clearly an example of the blind leading the blind.

[reason.on]

"Personally, I have to tell you that it will be a tremendous satisfaction for one reason--I don't know if you want to print this--but this is the first book that I've ever written that I did not learn anything from other people," Peikoff said. "It's entirely my ideas--not from teachers, reading or Ayn."

In light of this statement, it is difficult to judge whether Ayn Rand would have sanctioned it or not.

So I am to believe that LP in his infinite, uninfluenced wisdom: a> determines the true nature of all of reality (such that the veractiy of any given statement about reality can be determined and qualified qua LP's fully integrated mind), b>determines what psychologically motivates people to describe reality in one way or the other ("mis" or "dis"), and c> falsifies extraordinarily complex scientific ideas (i.e. Einstein's general theory of relativity) without "learning anything from other people?"

Regardless, what a joy it must be to be the first man in history to understand that statements, assertions and descriptions about reality are either "true" (integrated) or "false" (disintegrated). It is an equally astounding achievement to be the first man to ever understand that some people make shit up for dubious reasons (misintegrated).

RCR

Edited February 15, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Rich Engle]

I wonder how much he knows about partial integration. Like, that it happens.

[reason.on]

[substanial edit]

LP rolled out this thing and it's really not much, compared to other contemporary integrators.

Honestly, I don't think LP and KW even mean the same thing when they talk about "integration". The focus of KW's work has been to "integrate" (bring together) disparate ideas about psychology, spirituality, politics, science, art, etc...around an "integrated" model, while the focus of LP's work is to invalidate those same disparate sets of ideas, the result of which is not anything close to "integration", but rather just plain old destruction.

KW tries to incorporate as many different sets and kinds of ideas into his model as possible, while LP tries to exclude as many as possible. KW's model seeks to "integrate" contradictory view points (think of all the different ways of thinking that fit into his color scheme). LP's model seeks to deflect all contradictory view points. KW presents an organic structure into which we can rationally fold many, many ideas, while LP presents a useless holy-trinity into which we can only fit HIM. KW is a sponge, LP is a stone. KW is Thomas Jefferson, LP is Cardinal Richelieu.

I think, in general, KW is most interested in understanding reality, while LP is most interested in determining it.

RCR

"If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him."--Cardinal Richelieu

Edited February 15, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[Dragonfly]

So...is LP trying to Frankenstein together a new theory of gravity; one which suits his tastes better? Or is he just trying to "logically" poke holes in Einstein's work?

Of course he is completely impotent to do anything about it as it's way over his head, so the only thing he can do is to rail about it being "a floating abstraction", as if there isn't any empirical evidence for it!

How anyone can believe that all of thought can be "objectively" reduced down to three simple categories by way of normative "good, bad, and evil" judgments is beyond me (DIM). And doesn't the whole "geist" of this theory-of-everything place LP--himself--as the ultimate arbiter of what reality is, and consequently where any given "idea" fits into the model, and thus its true "objective" validity and relevance to the world? I mean, COME ON. Because something, anything, doesn't "integrate" with LP's philosophic understanding of the nature of "reality", it is invalid or worse evil? The theory is a model for brainwashing, not a critical understanding of reality; I'm sure Jim Jones would have loved the idea.

Yes, I think the term "Theory of Everything" is right on the money. Peikoff probably sees his DIM hypothesis as a kind of super-integration itself, now he can put everything neatly into pigeonholes, and by using terms like I, D1, M2 etc. it even sounds scientific! To use his own classification, I'd say this is a clear example of M2...

I wonder how long it will take before the randroids start using these terms to dismiss their opponents, like "he's obviously a D2, so we may safely ignore his arguments".

[SaulOhio]

I just recently finished reading Tracinski's article and found lots or reasons for hope in it.

What astounds me is that Peikoff is so able to dismiss it and its conclusions, but was able to create a fine taped lecture series like "Objectivism Through Induction". "What Went Right" and OTI seem to share the same approach to philosophy, and Peikoff makes some of the same observations such as that Rand could not have created her moral philosophy without the previous achievements of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution.

I think OTI was taped before the Kelley split, and probably before Barbara Branden published "The Passion of Ayn Rand". Are such experiences really enough to change a person's basic philosophical style and method? OTI was intended as a cure for randroids, but since then, its as if Peikoff has become the Supreme Randroid. :hmm:

[jenright]

I think OTI was taped before the Kelley split, and probably before Barbara Branden published "The Passion of Ayn Rand".

I think it was after both of those events. I think it was 1997. That's what Peikoff's site says:

http://www.peikoff.com/opar/oti.htm

But ARI mistakenly has 1987 here:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...demic_undergrad

[Chris Grieb]

John; I linked to the Peikoff site and noticed the commenters on his course. Really went and out got the toughest critics.

[Charles R. Anderson]

References were made above to an Objectivist physics when referring to the criticisms of Peikoff and Harriman of much of modern physics. Since Ayn Rand had little to say about physics and seemed to be quite conscious of her lack of knowledge of science, she did not develop an Objectivist theory of physics. Since Peikoff, and I assume Harriman, hold that Objectivism is a closed system, they cannot claim that they have developed the Objectivist physics. Furthermore, since their objections to modern physics are so poorly stated, one should not grace their set of purely negative comments with the name Objectivist physics.

Presumably, if an Objectivist physics exists it will be one which is consistent with reality and an aid to understanding reality. For now, given the context of man's knowledge of physics, the Objectivist physics is pretty much the physics of our day.

[Charles R. Anderson]

I do not know the difference between a physicist and an engineer.

Sure, commonly they majored in different departments at a university. Because physics is a huge subject, it makes sense to divide it up into many subfields for the purpose of teaching specialties and putting people with similar interests into the same department. So, the Physics Department emphases cosmology, high energy physics, low-temperature condensed matter physics, and maybe still has people working with photonics and semiconductor physics. This department ignores the physics of chemistry, the physics of living organisms, some aspects of electrical materials physics, the physics of stress and strain and their effects in materials, and the physics of biomaterials perhaps (or perhaps not). These ignored areas of physics are areas of such significance to man in living life and controlling his environment that they are worthy of having their own departments which collect together those investigators, teachers, and students interested in these subfields of physics.

Sure, some subfields were not all that obviously fields of physics when man first started studying them. It would be reasonable when biology was simply a classification science to believe it was something quite different than a subfield of physics. When chemistry was essentially alchemy, one could believe it to be another kind of subject altogether also. But now, it is clear that each of these fields is a science dominated by the laws of physics. They cannot be held to be different than physics.

So, what is the difference between applied physics and engineering? I know of no significant difference. Even in academia, people in the physics department and people in the school of engineering are often doing very similar research. Well, of course, because it is all about physics.

But the products of each academic department hold faith with their clique and fight to maintain the fiction that there is something fundamentally different in their field than in the others. They hold each other at arms length and they are proud of their ignorance all those areas of physics about which their department did not teach them.

I cannot be master of all of physics, but I can love it all and be aware of its very varied consequences and the importance of those consequences to man in living on earth.