The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar

[Jerry Biggers]

Michael,

A lot of folks are worn out from the last three weeks. I suspect that this is true on the other side as well.

Judging from the wearily predictable reactions so far, Mr. Perigo and his adepts can form all the "war parties" they want and it isn't going to make a damn bit of difference.

It's not Mr. Perigo that TAS ought to be worrying about at this juncture. It's Jim Valliant, now busily hawking PARC as the key to all mysteries and the salve to all disappointments, including the revocation of Mr. Perigo's invitation. The notion that TAS needs no response to Mr. Valliant's book was gravely mistaken in 2005 and continues to be gravely mistaken today.

Such a response would be easy enough to provide. The work of refuting Mr. Valliant's production has been done, and most of the specifics are available right here on OL.

I gather that Robert Bidinotto wants nothing to do with responding to PARC. Fine. But someone else in the TAS office needs to step up to the plate on this issue.

Otherwise TAS will keep on getting hit, somewhere or other, sometime or other, with charges of "Brandroidism" and "Rand-diminution."

Robert Campbell

Robert,

I don't know if someone at TAS (meaning their staff) would be willing to get involved in the project you are suggesting. However, a possible solution to the current absence of a published (as in, on paper) critique of PARC and related issues could fairly easily be created by combining some of the best analysis of that issue that have appeared on OL. Other essays, such as the one that Sciabarra wrote on his site (and which was particularly devastating) could be included. Of course, such a compilation would require the legal permission from the authors of those works.

I don't know how many copies of PARC have been sold. Certainly, more than it deserves, since its title is misleading, (because it barely mentions the rather extensive published critiques of Rand's work, choosing to engage in character assassination instead). I think that its publisher, "Durban House," may itself be a creation by Valliant (or privately published, a "vanity press").

Well, as the saying goes, "two can play that game." If a commercial publisher could not be found, there are many other ,publishers, such as "iUniverse Books," that have some sort of pay-as-it-sells arrangement. According to their website, they have been quite successful promoting some of their authors' books. This idea may be worth exploring, but it would likely be quite time-consuming, just getting all the permissions and other details lined up.

Any suggestion about such a project?

[Rich Engle]

"I can't think of a better way for him to destroy Objectivism's chances of being accepted."

The way it looks now, I could do some dumpster-diving and have better luck.

Can you imagine even getting so far as to find this, and then behold? Morons. Fazoul. Malakas.

rde

[Neil Parille]

Jerry,

Anyone is free to reprint or post either of my essays on PARC without charge as long as he or she doesn't edit them.

But I would note that it doesn't appear that PARC has been reviewed in a print magazine, so I doubt it has made much of an impact.

Edited January 26, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Adrian]

Despite the revocation of Perigo's invitation,

Sorry - my original post was an enquiry about this revocation - I now see the matter has been explained elsewhere on OL.

Edited January 26, 2008 by Adrian

[Chris Grieb]

Jerry; I think a good place to start with critiques of the Valliant book is Neil's excellent posts on it.

The book has not attracted much attention outside of Objectivists circles.

Edited January 26, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

Mr. Valliant's book has sold something like 3000 copies, according to the best estimates obtainable by outsiders (Mr. Valliant has never supplied numbers; indeed, has declined when asked).

It's had zero impact outside of Rand-land.

However, within Rand-land it's become a new loyalty test for the religionists, and a new basis for denying legitimacy to the non-religionists (including TAS, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Objectivist Living, and so on).

Since Mr. Valliant's book functions like a tawdry sequel to "Fact and Value," an on-the-record response to it from TAS would be appropriate.

It would be easy enough to compile an edited volume from Neil Parille's two essays, along with contributions from Michael Stuart Kelly, Chris Sciabarra, and Jordan Zimmerman. My little piece on whether Ayn Rand was jealous might be of some use as well, though it is not nearly on the scale of these other critiques. An editor's preface and/or postscript, and, voilà, the job would be done.

It could be published with iUniverse, but, frankly, I think this is the kind of publication that should have TAS's name on it.

Particularly when ARI sells Mr. Valliant's book and uses it for ideological and political purposes, but wouldn't put its name on it, or help the author get it published at a more reputable place than Durban House.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

As a lark, I might do something with this idea, but not for at least 2 or 3 months. Incidentally, I have been approached offline much earlier with this same idea, but I declined. There is a problem with audience. Lot of work and no money. (I would not be content to let it lie. I would try to promote the damn thing. I know me.)

PARC doesn't sell jack. So imagine what a collection of articles on PARC would sell.

EDIT: To tell you the truth, this might be good as a free give-away. I will be in touch with you offline.

Michael

[jordanz]

FYI - for those who haven't read it, here's my response to PARC: http://www.jordanzimmerman.com/parc

[Chris Grieb]

PARC has sadly had an impact in Objectivist circles. It is one of the reasons that Bill Perry is not working at TAS. Let me emphasize it is not the only reason. PARC is regularly cited by Dinah in her attacks upon the Brandens. Perhaps a list of contra-PARC writing such as Jordan Zimmerman's and Neil Parriel's with links would be a great idea.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Dragonfly]

PARC is regularly cited by Dinah in her attacks upon the Brandens.

You mean Dinah Sore?

[Neil Parille]

But I would think that those people who have praised PARC are probably familiar with the internet critiques. Putting them all in one place would be helpful though.

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

Mr. Valliant's book has sold something like 3000 copies, according to the best estimates obtainable by outsiders (Mr. Valliant has never supplied numbers; indeed, has declined when asked).

It's had zero impact outside of Rand-land.

However, within Rand-land it's become a new loyalty test for the religionists, and a new basis for denying legitimacy to the non-religionists (including TAS, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Objectivist Living, and so on).

Since Mr. Valliant's book functions like a tawdry sequel to "Fact and Value," an on-the-record response to it from TAS would be appropriate.

It would be easy enough to compile an edited volume from Neil Parille's two essays, along with contributions from Michael Stuart Kelly, Chris Sciabarra, and Jordan Zimmerman. My little piece on whether Ayn Rand was jealous might be of some use as well, though it is not nearly on the scale of these other critiques. An editor's preface and/or postscript, and, voilà, the job would be done.

It could be published with iUniverse, but, frankly, I think this is the kind of publication that should have TAS's name on it.

Particularly when ARI sells Mr. Valliant's book and uses it for ideological and political purposes, but wouldn't put its name on it, or help the author get it published at a more reputable place than Durban House.

Robert Campbell

Certainly there are very valuable and useful essays critiquing PARC by yourself, Neil Parille, Jordan Zimmerman, MSK, and many others on this website and elsewhere. These are all easily accessible by anyone with internet access, and I would think that "newbies" to this issue would also want to find out what those being attacked have to say. If they did read the other side (the Branden books and critiques here), then they would have been exposed to all the necessary facts to make up their own mind. But if a reader of PARC does not possess the necessary curiosity or independence of mind to look up all the facts, then I doubt that reading another book on PARC would change his or her mind.

If PARC has only sold a few thousand or so copies, then its current and prospective audience is rather small. The argument has been made that publishing critiques in print journals is giving it more attention then it deserves, but also have the paradoxical effect of increasing its readership (due to curiosity). I assume that this is one of the major reasons that The New Individualist has not published a review. For similar reasons, it is very unlikely that TAS would publish anything else in print form about PARC. As you note, ARI would not publish PARC under their own name.

An alternative possibility is to publish a more general book presenting a survey of the better known print articles and books criticizing Rand. Such a book could have a section on the more bizarre or cultish attacks on Rand, including PARC (with quotations and/or web references to the detailed critiques on OL and elsewhere) and Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is an overview of links about PARC going to October 2006 for those interested.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Jerry,

You've put Mr. Valliant's opus among bizarre and cultish attacks on Ayn Rand.

If you look at what it actually accomplishes, you can easily justify putting it there. In the long run, it will significantly reduce her appeal to anyone who is not already a Randian.

But, of course, Mr. Valliant deems it a ringing defense of Ms. Rand, as do those who are impressed by his book.

And if you call what Mr. Valliant is doing cultish, he's liable to slap you with a glove and challenge you to a duel.

Here's how I see the matter.

Any organization that operates in Rand-land has to contend with the religion of Ayn Rand.

Sooner or later, it will either have to embrace that religion, or take countermeasures against it.

Not just because of the history, familiar to us here, of organizations such as the Nathaniel Branden Institute and the Ayn Rand Institute that have promoted religious attitudes. But also because some of Ms. Rand's own published statements demanded religious adherence from her followers.

For both of these reasons, some actors in Rand-land will always insist on a tight linkage between Ms. Rand's supposed moral perfection and the validity of her ideas.

Now let's factor in the Ayn Rand Institute's strongly promoted view that Objecitivism is finished and perfect, if and only if Ayn Rand was morally perfect. And ARI's strident insistence that all legitimate actors in Rand-land must either accept that view, or refrain from any public criticism, either of the doctrine or of the organization that champions it.

Mr. Valliant's book is the latest in a string of broadsides demanding a profession of faith in the religion of Ayn Rand.

Non-religious Randians can therefore not avoid responding to that broadside, anyone than they could afford to avoid responding to "My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand," "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners," and "Fact and Value."

Besides, a refutation and exposure of PARC by an organization like TAS would put pressure on the Leonard Peikoff Institute, once and for all, either to own Mr. Valliant's book, or to disavow it. Having to defend Mr. Valliant's gross lack of scholarship, his misquotations, and his tendentious hectoring would tie up considerable intellectual resources at ARI, while making the organization even less appealing to non-Randians than it is already.

So, yes, responding to a low-circulation book from an author who is being ignored outside of Rand-land is an important thing to do. No one's going to get rich doing it, but it's a crucial piece of "inreach" for any and all non-religious Randians.

Besides, for every incipient religionist who reads PARC, gets down on bended knee, and swears fealty to the Ayn Rand Institute afterward, there will be several readers with their critical faculties still up and running who will be infuriated and grossed out by it.

From Day 1, I've encouraged more people to read Mr. Valliant's book. The more widely known the book is to non-zealots, the rougher it will be for Mr. Valliant, for his sponsor, Leonard Peikoff, and for the organization that is primarily benefiting from Mr. Valliant's black-bag job, ARI.

Robert Campbell

[Wolf DeVoon]

Objecitivism is finished and perfect, if and only if Ayn Rand was morally perfect.

X is immoral, therefore anything X says is false.

[Chris Grieb]

I just looked at the Durban House web site.

I also looked at a blog with several complaints from authors about their treatment by Durban House.

I noticed a John Lewis was listed as President of Durban House. Is this the same John Lewis who is a lecturer at ARI?

What other books has Durban House published?

Edited January 27, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Dragonfly]

(1) "Why Romantic Music Is Objectively Superior (and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron)";

(2) "Objectivism's Worst Enemy: Objectivists" -- which he said in his original announcement "will be about the pan-factional error of intrinsicism and religiosity generally."

The first talk no one should be invited to give. Linz subsequently tried to describe the title as a joke, but considering the history of his brow-beatings of persons who don't share his aesthetic tastes, his describing it thus can only be considered "a likely story" (i.e., not likely).

Yes, even if we dismiss the second half of the title as a joke it's still absurd. And in view of Perigo's silly posts about music we can only conclude that he's a rank amateur in that field who doesn't have the education nor the qualifications to make any sensible contribution to a discussion about music. So the initial acceptance of that talk can only have been for political reasons, i.e. they wanted to have Perigo, no matter what kind of nonsense talk he would give. A peculiar contrast with the "dear name" post: "1) you are not a professional philosopher 2) you have not published on this subject to my knowledge and 3) I'm not sure if this thesis is insightful or rationalistic." Is Perigo a professional philosopher, musician (air conductor?), musicologist? Has he published on this subject? Is his thesis insightful or rationalistic? Do I smell a double standard?

[Alfonso Jones]

I just looked at the Durban House web site.

I also looked at a blog with several complaints from authors about their treatment by Durban House.

I noticed a John Lewis was listed as President of Durban House. Is this the same John Lewis who is a lecturer at ARI?

What other books has Durban House published?

A quick search by Publisher on http:/www.amazon.com finds 109 hits, including PARC. PARC is one of 7 classified by Amazon as "non-fiction." (No, don't get me started...)

Alfonso

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anyone is curious about Durban House, I have a small compilation of facts I have presented in different posts:

See here from March 31, 2006.

See here from August 25, 2007.

See here from August 26, 2007.

I even have more stuff on file. There was a time when it looked like Durban House was bought out by Midpoint (its distributor). PARC was even advertised on Amazon and other online retailers as being published by Midpoint. The entire Durban catalog was also advertised for a while under the Midpoint name. Then miraculously, PARC reappeared published by Durban House and all connection with Midpoint ceased. All of this happened without any notice to the public as to what was going on.

I just looked at the official site (Durban House Press, Inc.) and at this moment, it is pretty ragged. The site might be undergoing maintenance or something, but right now there is a single incomplete page with no active links (in the souce view, there are a few links with cascading style sheets that apparently are not available for some reason). No book list. Only an introductory text.

There's a pretty ivory-colored parrot, though...

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

The ivory colored parrott takes care of everything. Thanks for the links.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Absolute Write has 31 posts on Durban House

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=812

...which is tied to Lindsey's Literary Services (editorial) and Karen Lewis & Co (agents):

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13729

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re Wolf's post #171 above with links pertaining to Durban House (the publisher of PARC), I posted material on the PARC_II thread.

SEE.

That stuff is dynamite.

Thanks much for the links, Wolf.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You all might have noticed that those links were provided in my critiques of Durban House months ago. Victoria Strauss is a long-time critic of DH.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Some posts on music were split off and sent to here.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

Jerry,

You've put Mr. Valliant's opus among bizarre and cultish attacks on Ayn Rand.

If you look at what it actually accomplishes, you can easily justify putting it there. In the long run, it will significantly reduce her appeal to anyone who is not already a Randian.

But, of course, Mr. Valliant deems it a ringing defense of Ms. Rand, as do those who are impressed by his book.

And if you call what Mr. Valliant is doing cultish, he's liable to slap you with a glove and challenge you to a duel.

Here's how I see the matter.

Any organization that operates in Rand-land has to contend with the religion of Ayn Rand.

Sooner or later, it will either have to embrace that religion, or take countermeasures against it.

resurrect her reputationNot just because of the history, familiar to us here, of organizations such as the Nathaniel Branden Institute and the Ayn Rand Institute that have promoted religious attitudes. But also because some of Ms. Rand's own published statements demanded religious adherence from her followers.

For both of these reasons, some actors in Rand-land will always insist on a tight linkage between Ms. Rand's supposed moral perfection and the validity of her ideas.

Now let's factor in the Ayn Rand Institute's strongly promoted view that Objecitivism is finished and perfect, if and only if Ayn Rand was morally perfect. And ARI's strident insistence that all legitimate actors in Rand-land must either accept that view, or refrain from any public criticism, either of the doctrine or of the organization that champions it.

Mr. Valliant's book is the latest in a string of broadsides demanding a profession of faith in the religion of Ayn Rand.

Non-religious Randians can therefore not avoid responding to that broadside, anyone than they could afford to avoid responding to "My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand," "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners," and "Fact and Value."

Besides, a refutation and exposure of PARC by an organization like TAS would put pressure on the Leonard Peikoff Institute, once and for all, either to own Mr. Valliant's book, or to disavow it. Having to defend Mr. Valliant's gross lack of scholarship, his misquotations, and his tendentious hectoring would tie up considerable intellectual resources at ARI, while making the organization even less appealing to non-Randians than it is already.

So, yes, responding to a low-circulation book from an author who is being ignored outside of Rand-land is an important thing to do. No one's going to get rich doing it, but it's a crucial piece of "inreach" for any and all non-religious Randians.

Besides, for every incipient religionist who reads PARC, gets down on bended knee, and swears fealty to the Ayn Rand Institute afterward, there will be several readers with their critical faculties still up and running who will be infuriated and grossed out by it.

From Day 1, I've encouraged more people to read Mr. Valliant's book. The more widely known the book is to non-zealots, the rougher it will be for Mr. Valliant, for his sponsor, Leonard Peikoff, and for the organization that is primarily benefiting from Mr. Valliant's black-bag job, ARI.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

If I were to adopt the legalese indictment mode of Mr. Valliant, I would indeed cite his book as one of the Exhibits in the case for calling ARIian Objectivism a cult. Of course, it was preceded by the Declarations of Faith from Peikoff (eg, "Fact and Value") and less exalted priestly pronouncements from Schwartz, et al.

Note that Valliant's title does not closely match its contents, which is primarily concerned with answering or refuting the accounts from the Branden's biographies (or memoirs). The book devotes very little space to either the scholarly or the popular critiques of Ayn Rand and her philosophical system. Even though we may disagree with the authors' conclusions, some of these critics' presentations are well-written and deserve an appropriate response (e.g., Scott Ryan's "Objectivism And The Corruption of Rationality" and Robbins' "Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System"). Instead, Valliant chose to ignore attacks on the main tenants of her philosophical system and instead concentrated on what he claimed are discrepancies in biographical accounts written by her former close associates

This tactic is a dead giveaway as to what he is up to: attempt to undermine the Brandens' accounts and thereby buttress the position that Rand was a perfect exemplar of her own philosophical system, which is complete, internally consistent and above criticism and certainly not subject to any elaboration.

Valliant's strategy will most likely appear to others standing "outside the tent" as a transparent ploy to endorse ARI-originated statements, while undermining/invalidating any criticism of the ARI Keepers of the Faith.

It is quite revealing that ARI has chosen NOT to allow in printed form, many of the major lectures and courses on aspects of Objectivist philosophy that have been presented at its conferences. In most cases, they are not written-up for either site publication or for submission to a professional refereed journal in philosophy. This is a most curious tactic for proselytizers of such a radical ideology as Objectivism. Supporters of ARI would do well to consider what this "shyness" to publication may mean. Most likely, the authors do not feel that a formal presentation could survive the critical scrutiny of a professional peer-reviewed or refereed journal.

Any organization that operates in Rand-land has to contend with the religion of Ayn Rand.

Sooner or later, it will either have to embrace that religion, or take countermeasures against it.

Well, isn't that what IOS/TOC/TAS was founded for? Sure as hell sounds like that in Kelley's "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand." If that presentation does not clearly state the point and the issues involved, then I'm thinking of inviting in the cartoon character, "Yosemite Sam," to graphically explain the situation. In one of his chases of his prey, he has failed to get his mount to stop even though he has been screaming "WHOA! WHOA!" He finally dismounts, runs in front of his camel, and screams, "WHEN I SAY WHOA! I MEAN, WHOA!!! - and slams his shotgun butt over the camel's head, to get his attention.

But here are some problems with publishing (in any format other than what appears on the web.) a response to PARC:

1) Reaction of non-ARIan supporters. Take a look at the responses that readers added on AMAZON's site describing the Vallient book. Some lauded it. But most condemned it along the lines of (paraphrasing); "When, oh when will this inane argument stop??" In other words, the whole subject detracts from the understanding of what Rand was advocating. This sort of picayune, tit-for-tat, attacks and counter-attacks, could go on forever.

2)Attention to this sort of personality attack, detracts from discussion of the philosophy, itself.

3) This whole problem could be handled in a more subtle, but effective, strategy. For example, Barbara Branden's PAR could be updated to answer/refute questions that have been raised by clarifying, elaborating, and/or annotating any section that warranted further explication,

4) The same with N, Branden's MYWAR, Simply expand , clarify, update the appropriate sections.

5) In both cases, respond to (legitimate) issues that have been raised. This can be done without, at the same time, "advertising" the more scurrilous attacks from the above-named sources.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Jerry Biggers