My response to Ed Hudgins' "The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar"

[Brant Gaede]

Upon careful reflection I have decided to retire from posting on O-Lists, except my own someday, maybe. Thank you, Michael and Kat, for your hospitality; I have enjoyed being here immensely, but the river has split and I have gone one way and you guys another.

--Brant

Edited January 29, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Rich Engle]

There goes another one. And one of the long-haul masters. Oh, I remember his work so far back. Lovely stuff, and he always sticks in.

His sentiment mirrors my own. And nothing to do with MSK or (his) Kat. Far from it.

The well was poisoned a long time ago, and now there is a line to dump more poison in. A man can't even move in this world without expecting some kind

of tiring attack.

I am considering much the same thing. Not OL (it is the best there in this world, no doubt), but overall.

Maybe individuation, at least under this system, is such that it cannot permit some of the other tender mercies, ones which I find to be Good, True, Beautiful.

The politics sicken me.

No swan-song yet. But my finger twitches on the trigger. No loss. In the current O-climate, no one is suprised, and no one misses anyone. Herd

mechanics, indeed.

r

Where's my gun cleaning kit? Reruns of "The FBI" are on, I want to sit there and watch it and clean a barrel out, in my black socks and white boxers, with an ashtray full of butts, and a half-done glass of whiskey, whilst watching the neon sign "HOTEL" flicker out slowly.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Something for the soon-to-be-defunct TAS, Ed and Will: Please take a short hike off a high cliff (maybe the second time will do the trick).

Brant,

I am almost in the mood to wax poetic about the fork in the river, but there is something in the above that is nagging at the back of my mind. I am not a fan of rash condemnations (and I don't believe you are doing that). It takes me a long time to get in condemnation mode and, once in, it is hard to get out. I know we all have our moments. Still, there is a world of difference between what you wrote above, which I believe is motivated out of hurt, and something like Perigo's most recent gem, which is motivated out malicious spite and the wish to humiliate:

Hudgins, Bidinotto, Kelley—come out and admit this openly, you craven apologies for approximations to shadows of jellyfish.

Same-old same-old moral equivalence we saw from you guys re PARC.

Was it "slime" Peikoff called you? He sure was in a good mood that day!

I know one of the reasons there is so much hatred here. I fully believe that Perigo was looking forward to going to TAS and spitting in their faces up close. He was denied that opportunity and it enrages him, like it would any bully or thug. He hides it behind some kind of rhetoric about being true to himself, but the truth underneath that surface is that he likes to spit in people's faces regardless of who they are. When I try to envision myself with that much spite in my heart, I get creeped out. My vision of happiness is vastly different.

I admire Ed, Robert, Will, David and everyone else at TAS enormously. They had a stellar year in 2007—a year of high achievements like is rarely seen in the Objectivist subcommunity. I feel great honor and pride in knowing them. Articles in mainstream press, top national magazine excellence award, an Objectivist event like I have never seen, and on and on.

So maybe it is a good time for reflection about what it means to be human. There are times in all our lives when our brains take a hike. I know mine did with the plagiarism issue. I am still cleaning up that mess. I remember John Aglioloro saying that when he went in to give Peikoff a million dollars for the film rights to Atlas Shrugged, he left his brains out in the waiting room. This was not because he bought the film rights, which was a wonderful thing, but because he left script approval with Peikoff. Now he has a closet full of scripts and years of frustration.

These things happen.

I have made my contempt for Perigo and his view of life clear, so there is no reason to rehash that. But I cannot in good conscious look at all the brilliant achievements that TAS has accomplished, then strike it all out of existence because of one lapse, even a doozy the size they did.

There are contexts and there are contexts. God knows what has gone on behind the scenes during all this. One thing is for sure. That is a context I do not have the privilege of fully knowing. So I have a real problem trying to evaluate it.

Rather than condemn, I prefer to nurture my admiration for these guys. They earned it. They deserve it. My contempt is for Perigo, not them.

It's a beautiful world, Brant. TAS is one of the beautiful things in it. I think it is a mistake to deny yourself that beauty because one guy's brains took a hike for a moment and the clean up was messy.

Haven't your brains ever taken a hike? Mine have.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Thanks for your last post.

I agree the invitation to Prego was a doozy of a mistake but as you said TAS had a great year.

I am already planning a few question at the TAS Q& A about the fiasco.

I also believe that the invitation was a mistake made by only one person.

Let's let TAS heal. The need a little time.

[Brant Gaede]

I can't leave here on a negative note, so I edited out my TAS remark. I hope they do well in the future. There are lots of good people here and I'll still be reading your various interesting posts by Barbara and Wolf, Chris, Michael, Kat, Shayne, Dragonfly, and on and on.

--Brant

edit: I didn't realize what a world of hurt I've been in because of the contretemps. The Perigo sanctioning was more than I could take. First there was the positive sanctioning by TAS, then the negative. LP feeds off both. Both are destructive.

There is something wrong with the public face of Objectivism and I think the cause runs deep. There is something wrong with the philosophy itself or at least the way it is used. This is why I am leaving. Not out of hurt and anger.

Luck.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

There is a Catch 22 in Objectivism.

Human nature includes a really ugly side. Some people cultivate that side. Others try to discipline it. But it is not formally recognized in Objectivim. Add to this the Objectivist principle that it is almost a duty to issue moral condemnation when a negative normative judgment is made.

You have a crack.

Nasty people use Objectivism to morally condemn good people (especially ones they think will not fight back). They blah blah blah a lot of different subterfuges, but basically they do it because it makes them feel good. They are bullies and they are nasty.

Good people always start out by saying, "Let's just ignore the nasty people."

The nasty people don't stop and they quote a lot of Rand and Peikoff to justify their nastiness.

Good people keep saying, "Let's just ignore the nasty people."

The nasty people don't stop and they quote a lot of Rand and Peikoff to justify their nastiness.

Then...

The nasty people keep up their nasty attacks and they quote a lot of Rand and Peikoff to justify their nastiness.

Then...

The nasty people keep up even more of their nasty attacks and they quote a lot of Rand and Peikoff to justify their nastiness.

Finally...

The good people snap. Everyone has limits on constantly being called a scumbag.

I think Objectivism needs a clear solid definition of spiritual nastiness and a resounding attribution of evil to it. Meanness of spirit is evil. It is disgusting.

Everybody knows this is true, too. Objectivists don't say it only because Ayn Rand didn't say it.

The nasty people abuse moral condemnation and pollute one of the best arms Objectivism has for improving the world. Nasty people feel entitled to spread their nastiness under a moral sanction. That pollution is why few people take Objectivist moral condemnations seriously—too much bickering.

Catch 22.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

There is something wrong with the public face of Objectivism and I think the cause runs deep.

In recent years, I have often remarked to friends that I'm good at the obvious. This is usually a sort of apology or explanation after naming an issue that bothered them pretty intensely. Maybe the obvious thing about Objectivism is our isolation from the wider world. We're outcasts. Don't believe in God. We're selfish and candid. Win or lose, we take responsibility. Very unusual. It gets lonely and tiresome. Worse to see Rand's progeny throwing mud at each other. I'm guilty of it. I feel enormous contempt for second-hand 'movement' spokesmice. Perhaps it's because I'm guilty of that, too. I climbed out of the gutter on Rand's capetails, wore the sign of the dollar on my lapel and demanded recognition as a public personality. Where would I be without Ayn Rand?

Anyway, I think you're right that the cause is deep, integral to Objectivism as a philosophy. With so much bullshit is the world, right or wrong we stand up and fight with each other, since no one else is listening. I don't see any harm in it. Young people aren't going to be put off by bad tempered spats. What we offer newcomers is a level playing field. Take your best shot. Use your mind independently, for better or worse. Pretty good program.

W.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[sjw]

Anyway, I think you're right that the cause is deep, integral to Objectivism as a philosophy. With so much bullshit is the world, right or wrong we stand up and fight with each other, since no one else is listening. I don't see any harm in it. Young people aren't going to be put off by bad tempered spats. What we offer newcomers is a level playing field. Take your best shot. Use your mind independently, for better or worse. Pretty good program.

Who is this "we"?

I'll tell you what the deep cause of the problem is. Objectivism has a big fat authoritarian streak. That's what's wrong with it. This contradiction runs throughout Objectivism on various levels, undermining it logically as a philosophy and existentially as a movement.

Shayne

[Dragonfly]

Now we hear all that talk about what a great and nice people they are at TAS. I beg to disagree. It seems obvious that Thomas is a big fan of Perigo, that means that there is an 800-pound gorilla in the TAS room that everybody is busy ignoring. Further I found the comment of Aaron on Solo (of all places!) right on the money, see here. I've seen no apologies by TAS for their accusations against OL members, so they are still standing. Anyway, I've always had my doubts about an organization that changes name every few years, and that announces itself pompously as "We are the most respected independent source of information about Objectivism" on its website. Respected by whom?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Who is this "we"?

Ge...ej...you got me, copper! Gasp. (expires)

[sjw]

Who is this "we"?

Ge...ej...you got me, copper! Gasp. (expires)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Respected by whom?

Dragonfly,

That's easy:

Folio Magazine (Eddie awards)

CSPAN

Washington Times

Wall Street Journal

Moscow Times

Charles Murray

Edward Crane

John Stossel

John Aglialoro

Howard and Karen Baldwin

Vadim Perelman

Michael Burns

Michael Stuart Kelly

A few others (not to mention many OL members).

That's just from 2007.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

It seems obvious that Thomas is a big fan of Perigo, that means that there is an 800-pound gorilla in the TAS room that everybody is busy ignoring. Further I found the comment of Aaron on Solo (of all places!) right on the money, see here.

I don't know where you're getting its "seem[ing] obvious that Thomas is a big fan of Perigo," but I agree with the compliment to Aaron's post.

Ellen

___

[Chris Grieb]

Dragonfly; Thanks to the link to SoloPassion. You reminded me why I stopped going there.

Brant; I glad you like my postings. I'm pleased you will be around even through it will be less.

[Dragonfly]

I don't know where you're getting its "seem[ing] obvious that Thomas is a big fan of Perigo," but I agree with the compliment to Aaron's post.

When the lynch mob first began to bray, Will said he was glad I was wrong for accepting and he was wrong for inviting, since that could well mean we were both right! He also said he knew me to be an excellent speaker, a true Objectivist, and someone who has thoughtful and insightful things to say. I suspect if it were over to Will, I'd still be going. It was nice dealing with him, and I had high hopes for what it portended, as did he.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The quote DF gives from Perigo is in this post.

I hadn't yet seen that when I queried. It does sound from Linz's report (provided his report is accurate) as if the situation is other than I'd thought it was. I'd thought that Will simply hadn't been paying attention to what Linz writes on SOLO. The descriptions "a true Objectivist, and someone who has thoughtful and insightful things to say"...hmmm..... A case might be made for the "true Objectivist" part. I've thought for some time that Linz shares with Rand a way of thinking about people as if they're ciphers in a morals play. His terminological palette of course differs from hers.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You guys are presuming that your source is accurate...

I suggest checking that with another source, like Will himself.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

You guys are presuming that your source is accurate...

I am not. I specifically wrote "provided [Linz's] report is accurate ."

(And my observation about the similarity I see between Linz's and Rand's portrayals of people in no way hinges on whether Will did or didn't say what Linz said he said. It's been my observation "for some time." Nor does my statement that a case could be made for thinking of Linz as "a real Objectivst" in any way hinge on whether or not Will, as reported, used that description.)

Ellen

EDIT: The wording Linz used was "true Objectivist."

__

Edited January 30, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

I could not make the same case you make about Perigo being a "real" or "true" Objectivist, whatever the devil that means.

I find the essence you describe for true Objectivist as "thinking about people as if they're ciphers in a morals play" quite a stretch.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

What is "a true Objectivist," Michael? The description isn't complimentary in my own lexicon. And for sure my comment about how Linz depicts people which you quoted wasn't meant as stating how I'd think of the "essence" -- not that I'd try to answer the question "What is the essence?" -- but it is a salient factor in my considering whether the description applies to someone.

Ellen

___

Edited January 30, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

You guys are presuming that your source is accurate...

Don't kid yourself. Perigo wouldn't be so dumb as to say that if it could be easily denied by Thomas that it was an accurate statement, making Perigo look foolish. No, we can safely assume that it is fairly accurate. So you should realize that if you give money to TAS, you give it to an organization with a Perigophile core.

[Robert Campbell]

I exchanged a couple of emails with Will Thomas during the recent debacle.

What Mr. Perigo says Will said sounds authentic to me.

I asked Will twice whether he'd ever listened to the 2006 Borders bookstore speech. Never did get an answer on that.

I think in this context "true Objectivist" means "has a firm command of Objectivist philosophy and commitment thereto, as Will Thomas understands these." Will told me that Mr. Perigo was a much surer bet than some speaker who turns out to have a shaky understanding of Objectivism.

Just how Will gauges Mr. Perigo's understanding of Objectivism is not clear to me. I would think that in many cases people who are not professed Objectivists have much more to offer to the TAS audience than people who do (e.g., a top person at Institute for Justice, speaking in his or her area of expertise, vs. Regi Firehammer or Peter Schwartz).

I put the issue to Will pretty much that way and never got a response either.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What is "a true Objectivist," Michael?

Ellen,

I don't use that kind of terminology since I consider Objectivism to be a body of thought, not a tribe or a religion. I would never call someone a "true Kantian" or a "true Popperian" for instance, much less make disparaging remarks about what a "true this-or-that" is. Maybe in a really broad master-of-the-obvious sense I would do that. For instance, I might say that a "true Objectivist" uses Ayn Rand's works as a reference instead of Hegel's. But you are digging for an essential characteristic. (btw - I like your "salient factor" step-around description of one of the essential characteristics salient factors of the nature of things. )

Don't kid yourself. Perigo wouldn't be so dumb as to say that...

Dragonfly,

You have much, much higher opinion of Perigo than I do. I have seen him be "so dumb" many times, starting with smearing an obviously innocent man as a pedophile and pushing it all the way up to a viscious NZ government campaign. You can use that kiind of man as a reference. I won't.

Robert Campbell just weighed in on this. Now he is a source I respect. I might disagree with Robert on conclusions or interpretations (not that I can think of any except maybe some matters of degree), but I have never seen him present false information on purpose.

I agree with Robert here. If Will actually did use that phrase "true Objectivist" and all the rest of Perigo's self-serving description, it would only mean that Perigo can quote some Rand when he wants to and gives loud lip-service to the philosophy. It would not mean that Will actually used his own eyes and looked at Perigo's behavior to compare theory with practice. It also would not mean that he is an admirer of Perigo's emotional excesses and nastiness. I think he simply refuses to look at the emotional excesses and nastiness, being engaged in some kind of "high-road" approach or something like that, or maybe he does see them and thinks Perigo can be cured over time, but these thoughts are only my specualtion.

By the fact that the invitation was made in the first place, I see a strong propensity for Will to refuse to accept Perigo for what he is, and insist on what he thinks Perigo should be. He replaces the "should be" in his head for the reality ("is") out there. That kind of error in thinking—replacing cognitive fact with normative evaluation instead of building evaluation on fact, or all the facts—happens a lot with Objectivists. In layman's terms, this is wishful thinking taken to the extreme.

And because of how this matter unfolded, I also speculate that Will is now including more cognitive information in this particular evaluation because it became too obvious to ignore.

That's how I understand all this.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I have been going through some of the nasty comments by your critics.

Have you noticed how they always use desciptive phrases like "wild-eyed," "frothing at the mouth," "hysterical," etc.?

Even at your most emotional, I always get the impression of cordial discourse. You do make use of hog-rassling and other colorful terms as humor, but I have yet to see any signs of such humor descending into "wild-eyed," "frothing at the mouth," "hysterical" insanity.

(The contexts where your critics describe you as such do not permit an interpretation of humor or even mocking. Their comments are almost always serious protests against you.)

I wonder what makes people do that. Either they are intentionally presenting a smear and hoping it will take, or they are more honest and actually see you that way. In the latter case, I can't think of any reason for such a blatant distortion other than the fact that you scare the holy hell out of them.

Pulling the covers off will do that to some people.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

You have much, much higher opinion of Perigo than I do. I have seen him be "so dumb" many times, starting with smearing an obviously innocent man as a pedophile and pushing it all the way up to a viscious NZ government campaign. You can use that kiind of man as a reference. I won't.

The two are not comparable (BTW, it's "vicious", not "viscious", tsk, tsk). Whatever the facts may be in the case of the alleged pedophile, Perigo could get away with his actions, and was in fact quite successful, so seen from his viewpoint it wasn't a dumb thing to do. But he no doubt realizes that it would be a stupid thing to misrepresent publicly his friendly dialogue with Thomas, as he might then be publicly corrected by his alleged friend, which would be quite embarrassing, as he's quite sensitive to criticisms of dishonesty. He may be dumb, but he's not that dumb. So we can be confident that it was a fairly accurate rendering of what had been said.

I agree with Robert here. If Will actually did use that phrase "true Objectivist" and all the rest of Perigo's self-serving description, it would only mean that Perigo can quote some Rand when he wants to and gives loud lip-service to the philosophy. It would not mean that Will actually used his own eyes and looked at Perigo's behavior to compare theory with practice. It also would not mean that he is an admirer of Perigo's emotional excesses and nastiness. I think he simply refuses to look at the emotional excesses and nastiness (blankout to be frank), imagining that he (Will) is engaged in some kind of "high-road" approach or something like that, or maybe he does see them and thinks Perigo can be cured over time, but these thoughts are only my specualtion.

Wishful thinking... Thomas isn't that dumb either. I'm sure he now knows very well who Perigo is and what he stands for, and I have a strong suspicion that he has known that all along. The picture of a naive Thomas inviting Perigo without knowing what that would entail is itself a naive picture. There is something rotten in the club of TAS. You have been warned.