Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dragonfly,

Typography question: Did the words now emphasized in bold in the post above just not appear at all on your screen in the original post, leaving gaps in the sentences, or did they appear in plain type?

Also: Do the italics show on your screen? E.g., did the word "italics" appear italicized in the preceeding question? ;-)

E-

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Following up on your post, if Valliant says the Branden books are arbitrary and nothing should be accepted without corroboration, why did Valliant tell me that he doesn't dispute the accounts of the Kalbermans and the Blumenthals in PAR?

This must mean that Valliant undertook efforts to verify their claims.

-Neil

____

Yeah, sure, he "undertook efforts to verify their claims." LOL.

ALSO: Notice the contradiction between his saying he doesn't dispute those accounts and what you quoted him as saying in your post above re the "collective best shot." What the Blumenthals are quoted as saying is quite negative. See my post #243 in which I quoted their full remarks as illustrating the justifiability of BB's Inquisitor comment. And what Elayne is reported as saying isn't flattering either, though it's much briefer. (I don't think Barbara reported any comment from Harry.)

When I read Valliant's post in which he said that he didn't dispute the Blumenthal's and Kalberman's accounts, it was with a reaction of: <eyebrows-raised>, But.., but..., but...then what of your "best shot" remark?

Can't pin him down on the same story twice -- and yet one of his major charges against "the Brandens" is alterations over time in their story.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

Dragonfly,

Typography question: Did the words now emphasized in bold in the post above just not appear at all on your screen in the original post, leaving gaps in the sentences, or did they appear in plain type?

Also: Do the italics show on your screen? E.g., did the word "italics" appear italicized in the preceeding question? ;-)

The emphasized words were readable. Now I know what words were highlighted I see that there is a slight color difference, but it's so small that I didn't see it at a first glance. They are a bit more purplish grey while the other text is more bluish grey. I have to look carefully to see where the highlighted text begins and where it ends. Bold and italics work fine.

[Jonathan]

I don't see any purple letters. Letters in quotes are dark bluish grey and the letters in the main messages are black (against a very light and a light bluish grey background respectively). I don't see any more colors in the text. Apparently the possibility of highlighting depends on the skin*) you use, so perhaps it would be better to use bold for "highlighting", as this always works.

Or use other colors.

Random text random text random text random text random text random text random text color test random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random color test text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text.

Random text random text random text random text random text random text random text color test random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random color test text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text random text.

[Ellen Stuttle]

A couple summarizing comments about PARC:

(1) If what James Valliant wanted to achieve was to refurbish Ayn Rand's "image" as seen by serious historians of ideas, he failed. IF the world of serious historians of ideas ever gets hold of PARC -- a questionable "if" at the current time, given how and by whom the book was published and the methods of advertising employed -- the effect will be to add to, not subtract from, the "blemishes" on the "face" of AR and the nature of O'ist circles.

(2) If what James Valliant wanted to achieve (as he sometimes seems to me to try to look as if he wanted to achieve) was to present a judicious analysis of Barbara Branden's biography and Nathaniel Branden's memoir (in both versions), he failed. I could write a far more judicious analysis. But then, I would be writing such an analysis discussing the books qua books and commenting on their merits as well as on whatever criticisms I have. The merits would much outweigh the criticisms, especially in the case of Barbara's biography, which, whatever its flaws -- relatively minor in my opinion -- I expect will live as a source of major importance as long as there remains interest in Ayn Rand.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Now, a few words about a subject which has come up tangentially or directly on three concurrent threads: "The Objectivist Psychologists and Me" (link), "The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part III," starting with post #49 (link), and "The Deification of Ayn Rand" (link):

What's the "basic problem" with the O'ist world?

This is a question which arises over and over, has been asked over and over as long as I've had familiarity with "the O'ist world."

(Parenthetic: by my "familiarity with 'the O'ist world,'" I mean in the sense of knowing people who considered themselves O'ists, a familiarity which started in late 1968, though I had met before then -- and hadn't liked -- a small group of New York O'ists residing at the time in the Chicago area and going to graduate school at either Northwestern or the University of Chicago.)

My candidate for the "root" problem is: mythologizing. By which I mean seeing oneself and trying to live one's life in terms of mythic dimensions; seeing oneself and trying to live one's life in terms of an idealized image which ignores, or when it notices interprets out of "importance," the details of one's real existence.

In this connection, I consider Linz an instructive example. Many times I've had the thought that he's like a crass caricature of Ayn Rand's own self-mythologizing tendency.

See for instance this recent post, which is short enough I'll quote it in its entirety:

Seriously ...

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sat, 2008-05-31 06:24.

In his obsessive, relentless quest to show Ayn Rand to be immoral, Prof. Campbell bears testament to the motives of his mentors and makes it easier for historians to sort truth from self-serving fiction. For the Brandens, the Campbells, the Parilles, the other gossiping subterraneans at O-Lying and all other such low-lifes, it's of overbearing importance to echo Wynand and insist that human beings of integrity do not exist, that all are on a par with them in their underground sewer, that everyone has his price (even if it's not as low as theirs). To this end they ascribe willful intent to honest mistakes, elevate the inconsequential to the cosmic, overlook the authentic super-heroism bespoken by Ayn Rand's real-life story ... and set out to smear her defenders as they smear her. Their panic and lynch-mobbery when one of her defenders is scheduled to speak on unrelated matters at an event they arrogantly consider theirs speaks volumes. They are squalid, leprous pygmies trying to infect the flesh of a giant. All of this is now much more clear than before. As I say, history will be glad of these exchanges.

"Seriously," it's all mythologic. It's also, in a far less brilliant and powerful form, a kind of encapsulated synopsis of just the type of thing AR herself said about the psychology of opponents in her essays, and in her reports (contrasting herself to her opponents) of her own psychology.

See if you -- "gentle reader" -- can't detect the similarities.

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

A couple summarizing comments about PARC:

(1) If what James Valliant wanted to achieve was to refurbish Ayn Rand's "image" as seen by serious historians of ideas, he failed. IF the world of serious historians of ideas ever gets hold of PARC -- a questionable "if" at the current time, given how and by whom the book was published and the methods of advertising employed -- the effect will be to add to, not subtract from, the "blemishes" on the "face" of AR and the nature of O'ist circles.

(2) If what James Valliant wanted to achieve (as he sometimes seems to me to try to look as if he wanted to achieve) was to present a judicious analysis of Barbara Branden's biography and Nathaniel Branden's memoir (in both versions), he failed. I could write a far more judicious analysis. But then, I would be writing such an analysis discussing the books qua books and commenting on their merits as well as on whatever criticisms I have. The merits would much outweigh the criticisms, especially in the case of Barbara's biography, which, whatever its flaws -- relatively minor in my opinion -- I expect will live as a source of major importance as long as there remains interest in Ayn Rand.

Ellen

___

Ellen --

Good post. I agree on both of your broad points.

1) For those who need to see a refurbishing of Rand's image, detailed "he said/she said / she said / lots of other people said" type discussions are irrelevant and ineffectual. Issues about the reasons for the schism are largely irrelevant on this, for those who are interested in the philosophical issues pro and con regarding Rand's philosophy. And those who find the notion of a "scandal" sufficient to dismiss her ideas would not be persuaded even if PARC were what it is not - a convincing, clear and fact-based analysis.

2) PARC does not represent a serious attempt at an analysis of Passion of Ayn Rand, Judgment Day or My Years With Ayn Rand. Neil has documented this quite well, and shown that what we have in PARC instead is a careless disregard for facts, an amazing propensity for out of context quoting (with ignoring of the proper context) and other silly argumentation.

and I also wish to comment:

3) The fact that PARC is taken seriously by ANYONE (though apparently a declining minority) speaks poorly of the orthodox Objectivist community. I wonder if any of those who seem to like it have actually read it. (I have, and the only thing I found interesting in it were the excerpts from Rand's journals. Those were fascinating, though I had the awkward sense at times that I was reading something Rand would NEVER have countenanced publishing, and invading her privacy.)

4) Anyone who has read PAR, JD or MYWAR as well as PARC and has an attention span sufficient to not be swayed by rhetoric will make the obvious decision against PARC. Neil Parille has done an admirable job of documenting the flaws in PARc, against which the relatively minor flaws which have been documented in PAR, JD and MYWAR pale by comparison.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Dragonfly]

To this end they ascribe willful intent to honest mistakes, elevate the inconsequential to the cosmic..

This description perfectly fits his buddy Valliant (think for example of the typewriter story).

[Alfonso Jones]

Now, a few words about a subject which has come up tangentially or directly on three concurrent threads: "The Objectivist Psychologists and Me" (link), "The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part III," starting with post #49 (link), and "The Deification of Ayn Rand" (link):

What's the "basic problem" with the O'ist world?

This is a question which arises over and over, has been asked over and over as long as I've had familiarity with "the O'ist world."

(Parenthetic: by my "familiarity with 'the O'ist world,'" I mean in the sense of knowing people who considered themselves O'ists, a familiarity which started in late 1968, though I had met before then -- and hadn't liked -- a small group of New York O'ists residing at the time in the Chicago area and going to graduate school at either Northwestern or the University of Chicago.)

My candidate for the "root" problem is: mythologizing. By which I mean seeing oneself and trying to live one's life in terms of mythic dimensions; seeing oneself and trying to live one's life in terms of an idealized image which ignores, or when it notices interprets out of "importance," the details of one's real existence.

In this connection, I consider Linz an instructive example. Many times I've had the thought that he's like a crass caricature of Ayn Rand's own self-mythologizing tendency.

See for instance this recent post, which is short enough I'll quote it in its entirety:

Seriously ...

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sat, 2008-05-31 06:24.

In his obsessive, relentless quest to show Ayn Rand to be immoral, Prof. Campbell bears testament to the motives of his mentors and makes it easier for historians to sort truth from self-serving fiction. For the Brandens, the Campbells, the Parilles, the other gossiping subterraneans at O-Lying and all other such low-lifes, it's of overbearing importance to echo Wynand and insist that human beings of integrity do not exist, that all are on a par with them in their underground sewer, that everyone has his price (even if it's not as low as theirs). To this end they ascribe willful intent to honest mistakes, elevate the inconsequential to the cosmic, overlook the authentic super-heroism bespoken by Ayn Rand's real-life story ... and set out to smear her defenders as they smear her. Their panic and lynch-mobbery when one of her defenders is scheduled to speak on unrelated matters at an event they arrogantly consider theirs speaks volumes. They are squalid, leprous pygmies trying to infect the flesh of a giant. All of this is now much more clear than before. As I say, history will be glad of these exchanges.

"Seriously," it's all mythologic. It's also, in a far less brilliant and powerful form, a kind of encapsulated synopsis of just the type of thing AR herself said about the psychology of opponents in her essays, and in her reports (contrasting herself to her opponents) of her own psychology.

See if you -- "gentle reader" -- can't detect the similarities.

Ellen

___

Ellen -

I think there's a dramatic difference in quality and contribution. Read the introductory essay in For The New Intellectual, for instance. That has much of what you refer to in Rand's writing. What is in common with this and the Perigo notes, etc. which you cite is, in my view, the tendency to accept a quick and improperly founded assessment of what an "opponent" has actually meant instead of actually seeking to read the original source and understand what was said and meant. And to launch into rhetorical flourishes (done with far greater skill by Rand) based on that effect.

I'm reminded of her own comment about being at times being a propagandist.

I can read the introductory essay in FTNI, or others by Rand (particularly in the later years), and still learn from them. All I see in the cites from Perigo et al is rhetorical bluster - no insight, no attempt at integration, etc.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Neil Parille]

This description perfectly fits his buddy Valliant (think for example of the typewriter story).

Valliant isn't even willing to accept the possibility that Fern Brown had a mistaken memory or heard the story from Rand. He's convinced she made it up. (Of course, he hasn't listened to her interview with the Rand Archives.)

[Ellen Stuttle]

"Seriously," it's [the post by Linz which I quoted] all mythologic. It's also, in a far less brilliant and powerful form, a kind of encapsulated synopsis of just the type of thing AR herself said about the psychology of opponents in her essays, and in her reports (contrasting herself to her opponents) of her own psychology.

See if you -- "gentle reader" -- can't detect the similarities.

Ellen -

I think there's a dramatic difference in quality and contribution.

Agreed as to the difference in quality, as I said. But in regard to the particular features I was talking about, the psychological assessments of others and self, I can't agree about the difference in "contribution," since I find Rand on the subject of psychology -- I mean the psychology of real live people -- a negative contribution to those who take her analyses as having weight.

This becomes complicated. As I've said before, I think that Rand had to have the mythologic view of psychology which I think she had, else she couldn't have written such a deliberate mythos as Atlas Shrugged. It's not that I have any wish that she was other than she was.

But there are non-fiction works of hers which I wish she'd never penned. The two foremost on the list are the essay "For the New Intellectual" and the "Psychology of Psychologizing" article. I could also be grateful if much of what she wrote on aesthetics had been severely edited if it was published at all.

Read the introductory essay in For The New Intellectual, for instance. That has much of what you refer to in Rand's writing.

I've read it, more than three or four times; many times. Yes, it does have qualities of what I refer to -- though it also has a sweeping scope, a writing power which proceeds like a whirlwind and is far beyond any intellectual feat or writing feat Linz could achieve. It's a tour de force of writing. I remain to this day rather astounded by the writing. I nevertheless think it's so badly flawed in its simplistic depiction of thought and motive as to be outright harmful to her admirers.

Ellen

___

[Neil Parille]

Does anyone have a copy of Sidney Hook's review of For the New Intellectual?

Bruce Goldberg did a rather scathing review in The New Individualist Review. I didn't know until I read the linked article that Goldberg was connected to Rothbard and apparently had some ties with Rand.

-NEIL

____

Edited June 1, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Brant Gaede]

While I understand why Ellen wishes AR never published some of her essays, nothing would have been substantially improved but more would have been obscured if she hadn't. I wish her journal entries that came to us via PARC had been handled by competent historians and scholars instead of dressed up in a prosecutor's brief to the jury at a trial of the Brandens.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

After more than three years of PARC the re-mythologized Ayn Rand is ready to take on the world once more--a world that recognizes she got a bum deal from Nathaniel and Barbara Branden--that Ayn Rand really was a giant of giants?

I have no idea what Leonard Peikoff was thinking of. I do know he is extremely fastidious. Let someone else read and review The Passion of Ayn Rand. Let someone else deliver her just-before-The-Break journals to hoi polloi. He's above it all. But Rand, of course, isn't. Throw her into the fire too. I wonder if this master of Objectivism will run out of material to sustain himself on the eroding isle of Rand mythos before he expires.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To this end they ascribe willful intent to honest mistakes, elevate the inconsequential to the cosmic..

This description perfectly fits his buddy Valliant (think for example of the typewriter story).

Dragonfly,

This is a tendency I have noted. These people take their own failings and ascribe them to people who differ with them. (I have called this rhetorical device elsewhere, "You're a pooh-pooh head," "No. You're a pooh-pooh head.")

But there is even a funnier offshoot. It's the Newspeak.

For instance, if a person does not like to be insulted online and posts a refutation elsewhere, he is "obsessing."

If a person condemns irrational behavior or looks at a dubious intent, he is "hysterical."

If a person is very clear about the condemnation, he is "wide eyed" and "frothing at the mouth." (Incidentally, can a person froth anywhere else except at the mouth? Hmmmm...)

If a group of independent people agree that a person is vicious and irrational when he is vicious and irrational, they are a "lynch mob."

On the positive side, if a person viciously attacks someone else in Rand's name or while claimsing to represent Objectivism, even when grossly mistaken, the person is "KASS." The more irrational and kindergarten level the person gets, the more "KASS" he is.

I am sure you can come up with other examples. The rhetorical device here is an ad homenim attack in order to escape talking about the issue. But I think the exaggerations are cute. I have met several OL posters personally and I cannot imagine any one of them frothing (at the mouth or anywhere else, for that matter).

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

I wrote: "Read the introductory essay in For The New Intellectual, for instance. That has much of what you refer to in Rand's writing."

and Ellen responded, in part:

"I've read it, more than three or four times; many times. Yes, it does have qualities of what I refer to -- though it also has a sweeping scope, a writing power which proceeds like a whirlwind and is far beyond any intellectual feat or writing feat Linz could achieve. It's a tour de force of writing. I remain to this day rather astounded by the writing. I nevertheless think it's so badly flawed in its simplistic depiction of thought and motive as to be outright harmful to her admirers."

Ellen -

Exactly my meaning re the FTNI introductory essay. Her ability to write, to be persuasive is impressive beyond my ability to marshall the words to convey. The flaws in the argumentation (primarily the imputation to other philosophers of ideas and motivations based on what appears to have been very modest personal exposure to their own writing) remain, of course.

I wonder - did some of those around Rand - the Brandens, Peikoff, ... attempt to persuade her that she was operating based on what were at best highly arguable notions of what Plato had ever said? Or Kant? (I'd really love to hear from some about such experiences, if they happened --- and yes, I'm writing this on the road, in Madison, Wisconsin and away from PAR and JD (but with my copy of MYWAR with me - brought it for reading on some of the long plane rides...).

Of course, I had no intent to imply that you (or others of this thread were not familiar with the introductory essay to FTNI.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited June 2, 2008 by Bill P

[Neil Parille]

Bill,

I believe Barbara Branden has said that she and Leonard Peikoff would discuss various philosophers with Rand and even provide her with written summaries.

I certainly don't get the impression that Rand ever did much primary reading in philosophy after she came to the US. If the books she commented on reproduced in her Marginalia are representative, it doesn't seem that her reading was systematic.

-NEIL

____

Edited June 1, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill,

I believe Barbara Branden has said that she and Leonard Peikoff would discuss various philosophers with Rand and even provide her with written summaries.

I certainly don't get the impression that Rand ever did much primary reading in philosophy after she came to the US. If the books she commented on reproduced in her Marginalia are representative, it doesn't seem that her reading was systematic.

-NEIL

____

Neil -

I believe I have read that also (though I don't have a cite). What I do not recall is anyone recounting stories of them attempting to argue with Rand to the effect that she (Rand) had not accurately characterized Kant, Plato, etc... I'd be grateful for any cite someone can offer to that effect.

I wonder to what extent Rand's exposure (post-arrival in the USA) to classic philosophers might have been largely as others brought them up to her - as in Peikoff looking for help in his philosophy classes, Barbara Branden doubtlessly discussing her studies at NYU, etc...

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Daniel Barnes]

My candidate for the "root" problem is: mythologizing.

...whilst simultaneously demanding, as in her fiction, that her followers accept these grandiose myths as reality.

[Chris Grieb]

Does anyone have a copy of Sidney Hook's review of For the New Intellectual?

Bruce Goldberg did a rather scathing review in The New Individualist Review. I didn't know until I read the linked article that Goldberg was connected to Rothbard and apparently had some ties with Rand.

-NEIL

____

Neil; Isn't the NYT in most large libraries? I will check here in DC and forward a copy of Hook's review.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Neil; Isn't the NYT in most large libraries? I will check here in DC and forward a copy of Hook's review.

If you find the review, Chris, please forward me a copy too. I read it once upon a time, but don't remember the details.

Thanks much.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] What I do not recall is anyone recounting stories of them attempting to argue with Rand to the effect that she (Rand) had not accurately characterized Kant, Plato, etc... I'd be grateful for any cite someone can offer to that effect.

Bill,

I don't recall any specific reference by anyone who attempted to argue with her on such points, though "fleshing in" from Hospers' Liberty Memoir, "Conversations With Ayn Rand," it sounds as if he might have raised some detailed points about her interpretations. George Walsh thought she'd made errors about Kant (possibly about Plato, too, I don't know there), but I don't specifically recall a report from him about having argued the issues with her. Doesn't mean he never did, but unless he says something I've forgotten in his Full Context piece critiquing her on Kant, I don't know of anywhere where he might have said anything in print about attempting to dispute with her. People did tend just not to try to argue.

Ellen

Edit: I missed the "etc." in the "Kant, Plato, etc." on first reading. Unfortunately the answer's negative on the "etc." too: I'm unaware of a report in print of anyone attempting to argue with her. I'm aware from personal report of a philosopher, J. Roger Lee, a graduate student at the time, who got into some detailed exchanges with Leonard Peikoff in which, according to J. Roger, Peikoff's ignorance of philosophy post about Hegel was glaringly revealed. I believe the accuracy of J. Roger's estimate; he truly knew his stuff on contemporary philosophy. However, although J. Roger was present at gatherings at Rand's a number of times, I don't recall his ever telling me that he tried to argue with her.

___

Edited June 2, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Philip Coates]

> What I do not recall is anyone recounting stories of them attempting to argue with Rand to the effect that she (Rand) had not accurately characterized Kant, Plato, etc. [bill]

Bill, I think there are several different issues to consider with regard to a major philosopher's positions (and whether someone has fairly captured them) :

i) whether the philosopher is consistent or takes different positions at different times in his long career (Plato's early vs. late dialogues, Kant saying we can't know directly vs. his writing with great certainty on certain scientific and political matters, etc.)

ii) the thinker's philosophical tradition - how the philosopher has been interpreted or spun off from (Kant vs. Kantianism)

iii) what a position boils down to, even if the thinker might not have stated it (or seen it) so clearly

iv) essentializing and dropping certain contradictions to get the overall thrust or most important aspects, despite any internal waffling back and forth or mysterious cryptic exceptions (metaphysics: Plato believed in two realities and we live in the more unreal one; Aristotle believed in only one, the here and the now)

v) full detailing as opposed to essentializing: capturing in an 'academic' manner that would satisfy a dissertation committee every twist and turn, every exception, every inconsistent or deviating statement of an important thinker without excising any, without simplifying or boiling down (“...fascinatingly, in Wittgenstein’s journal entries he offers a rather different view while under heavy medication: ”)

[william.scherk]

On the positive side, if a person viciously attacks someone else in Rand's name or while claimsing to represent Objectivism, even when grossly mistaken, the person is "KASS." The more irrational and kindergarten level the person gets, the more "KASS" he is.

KASS ostensibly refers to Kick Ass. Kick Ass means essentially nothing beyond taking the boots to someone. Kicking someone's ass seems a dullard's way of winning a point, not a vaunted quality of argument. It is ugly, aggressive and belligerent.

One odd note over on the sister list, not on topic here: future historians are set to pore over James Valliant's threads, according to Perigo . . .

I'm sure [ . . . ] James knows he's writing for history. These exchanges will be among the material picked over by Rand scholars till kingdom come.

I think not. If it were partly true, which particular exchanges rise above the background thrum? Consider that Valliant has been beating the drum for years now, and there is a morass of threads from the old SOLO, from this place and elsewhere. Thousands of postings. What makes the current two threads so intriguing?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

KASS means what you said, but it was born as a savior mechanism into the stark wilderness of this tragic meaningless world that is perishing from various and sundry ghastly orgies. It was crafted as an orgy-buster. Seigfried's sword erected!

The original explanation was a campy pseudy-sexy cool-dude I'm-da-man kind of bully-babble. It went something like this:

Kick ass, take names, then kick some more ass.

The issue is metaphysical: kick qua kick.

Kick as an end in itself.

Any old thing to kick will do, actually. I think the ass is merely incidental, although it uses up 3/4 of the jingo-jango acronym and neatly ties in with the image of the author.

Michael