Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

Forgive me for repeating your post. I want a copy here for continuity.

It does belong in humor, though. Valliant's normative-before-cognitive absolute has kicked in so deeply that he even has a hard time identifying whom he is addressing. That's just an unimportant detail, though. The important thing is that he is defending Rand's honor (as he understands it) and reality be damned!

Michael

Valliant on SOLOP, quoting me and then commenting, while somehow failing to grasp who I was talking about:

"Why is [Valliant] assuming that others' disagreements or criticisms of [Ayn Rand] are efforts to prove that his hero has feet of clay? It sounds to me as if he's very emotionally invested in smearing anyone who dares to question some of the actions of his hero, or to point out the shoddiness of some of her defenders.

"I think a more important question is why does Jim get so upset that others simply recognize that Rand had faults? Why is he so disturbed by the fact that some of Rand's fans openly talk about her mistakes, instead of having to be backed into a corner and act like reality-denying fools until finally admitting that Rand was sometimes irrational, self-contradictory, harshly judgmental or dishonest?" -- "Jonathan"

Who told this fair-minded chap, Jonathan, that he could call me "Jim"?

(That's for my friends, or at least someone who knows me, "Jon-Jon.")

No one told me that I could call Valliant "Jim," and I didn't. I was obviously calling James Heaps-Nelson "Jim."

Here's the post of mine in question. How in the ever living fuck did Valliant manage to get it twisted around in his head that I was talking about him?

Here's more from Valliant's comments about what I said:

Is that what I said or even implied -- that all criticism of Rand is an effort to "find feet of clay," and not just certain critics -- and certain specific criticisms? Naming the actual criticisms and the responses involved seems to be forbidden at OL.

Hopefully Valliant now understands that the "Jim" I was referring to was James Heaps-Nelson, and that my comments had nothing to do with anything that Valliant may or may not have said or implied. What are the odds that he'll still not get it straight after reading this post?

More Valliant:

And readers can see the "corner-backing" around here and who's been involved.

Speaking of readers and what they can or can't see, I wouldn't have thought that any readers would have had a problem recognizing that I was talking about James "Jim" Heaps-Nelson in my posts, and not James Valliant.

Valliant quoting me again and commenting:

"I think we all know that Rand had integrity. Some of us have enough honesty and integrity to freely admit that she was sometimes irrational, self-contradictory, harshly judgmental and dishonest." -- "Jonathan"

Again, don't hold your breath for any specific contradictions or the like, of course.

Hey, no need to hold your breath. An example of Rand's dishonesty? Okay. I agreed with Diana Hsieh when she wrote,

But Rand was obligated to tell the truth about the reason for her break with Branden, which she did not. If she wished to keep the affair private, as would have been reasonable, she could have cited irreconcilable personal differences and even the Brandens' dishonesty. Instead, she fabricated all sorts of false justifications in 'To Whom It May Concern' -- and failed to mention the real reason for the break.

In Basic Principles of Objectivism, Nathaniel Branden argues that honesty requires that we take responsibility for the reasonable inferences of others. Misleading technical truths are not honest. Even if every word that Rand wrote about the Branden's in "To Whom It May Concern" were true, the letter would still fail that test miserably.

Ayn Rand's dishonesty in the aftermath of her break with Nathaniel Branden is certainly disappointing to me, but hardly devastating. I admire Rand as a novelist and a philosopher, but her personal conduct is ultimately irrelevant to me.

And here's a simple example of Rand being irrational and self-contradictory:

She defined art as a recreation of reality and said that it cannot serve a utilitarian purpose, yet she categorized architecture as art, despite stating that it served a utilitarian purpose and despite claiming that it does not recreate reality.

As for "harshly judgmental," I'll refer readers to her many comments on the moral and psychological status of a variety of thinkers and artists and their works. Her comments on Dali, Vermeer, Degas, Beethoven and Parrish come to mind off the top of my head. I'd have to get back to you with her exact words. Other than that, there are a wide variety of comments that she made on many different issues ranging from the handicapped, as we've been discussing here on OL recently, to homosexuals ("immoral and disgusting,") etc., that I would think would easily qualify as being "harshly judgmental."

J

[Brant Gaede]

deleted by Brant.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

"Mullah Rand":

This post is some half-formed thoughts which, partly, are arising in connection with my intention to write about the Lonnie Leonard episode. I said earlier that I'd write about that. I haven't forgotten. I've been re-reading Therapist first.

The one chapter of Valliant's book where I think he makes a semi-legitimate argument is the "Mullah Rand" chapter. He misstates a lot there. But the basic question he raises -- to what extent WAS Rand an "authoritarian"? -- I think is a good question.

She wasn't totalitarian. She wasn't "authoritarian" in the sense Rothbard presented her as having been. She wasn't "authoritarian" in the sense of the Catholic Church, despite the number of analogies to Church history which are made. "Heresy" in the Objectivist world isn't a sin punishable by literal torture, confiscation of possessions, debarment from entry into literal heaven.

Nonetheless, the "authoritarian" label I think has a truth to it in that Ayn expected from her close associates: agreement and a form of loyalty which was unreasonable.

I think that John Hospers does a good job of describing the expectation in his "Conversations With Ayn Rand":

.

Memoir

Conversations With Ayn Rand

by John Hospers

Liberty

Volume 4, Number 1

pp. 51-52

September 1990

[He's spoken of his not wanting to write a piece countering Sidney Hook's review of FTNI, and of his friendship in which politics weren't relevant with aesthetician Isabel Hungerland and Ayn's exclaiming, "What!" a friend of yours--a liberal?"]

[For the full text See]

I realized then that I was expected, once I knew Ayn, to sacrifice the friendship of all persons with political (and other) views opposed to hers. Not that I would have to--I was supposed to want to. It was immoral of me to continue to deal with such people. With many of them, as with Isabel, I had a kind of relaxed, laid-back relationship, never talking politics at all from one year to the next, and often not knowing what their political views were. But now I was supposed to excommunicate them all. "If thine hand offend thee, cut it off." I was not willing to plant a flag on a new terrain and thereby disavow my allegiance to all other views, and I deeply resented Ayn's attempt to steer me in that direction--or should I say, her assumption that I would "of course" do such a thing.

It wasn't that I would have been unwilling to declare where I stood, if I had been totally convinced and was prepared to defend it. I try not to back off of commitments. But my whole way of coming at philosophy was quite different from hers, and in spite of various attempts I don't think she ever understood mine. [....]

[....]

The more time elapsed, the more the vise tightened. I could see it happening; I hated and dreaded it; but knowing her personality, I saw no way to stop it. I was sure that something unpleasant would happen sooner or later. The more time she expended on you, the more dedication and devotion she demanded. After she had (in her view) dispelled objections to her views, she would tolerate no more of them. Any hint of thinking as one formerly had, any suggestion that one had backtracked or still believed some of the things one had assented to previously, was greeted with indignation, impatience, and anger. She did not espouse a religious faith, but it was surely the emotional equivalent of one.

A similar circumstance is the way she pressured the Blumenthals for amongst other failings (in her view) their wanting to extend their range of acquaintainship beyond the Objectivist circles. As it happens, Allan told me of this at the time. The story would be a long one; it involves an altercation I had with him in which I was asking questions which ended up angering him (after which meeting I made no attempt at private exchange with Allan until after he broke with Ayn). He spoke of his and Joan's trying to extend their circle of friends and of Ayn's being upset about this.

Another example is Nathaniel's report of his excursions to Boston to talk with Robert Efron and Ayn's complaints at those excursions.

It wasn't that she "demanded agreement." It was that she made expectations known, expectations which weren't reasonable, expectations of loyalty, devotion which exceeded the bounds of what's legitimate to expect from persons professing basic agreement with one's views.

Ellen

___

Edited June 10, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Neil Parille]

Perhaps Mr. Valliant's screed will prompt people at SOLO to come here and see the interesting discussion of his book and Rand's life. For example, they might learn a bit by comparing what Mr. Valliant says about Dr. Hospers with what Ellen has written. Her blog posts have an attention to detail far beyond anything found in Mr. Valliant's book.

-NEIL

____

[Brant Gaede]

Perhaps Mr. Valliant's screed will prompt people at SOLO to come here and see the interesting discussion of his book and Rand's life. For example, they might learn a bit by comparing what Mr. Valliant says about Dr. Hospers with what Ellen has written. Her blog posts have an attention to detail far beyond anything found in Mr. Valliant's book.

They obviously come here al the time, with the possible significant exception of Linz.

Joe Maurone just now says my signature line, which I deleted earlier today, "I am not an Objectivist", was my proud statement of fact. All it was was an attempt to distance myself from practically everybody else calling themselves Objectivist whose views frequently clash with mine re what Objectivism is or should be. It's not, for instance, Orthodox Objectivism which essentially is if Ayn Rand said it it is part of Objectivism. It is not Objectivist esthetics which is a bunch of opinions not really integrateable into the philosophy the way the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics are. There is no basic principle of Objectivist esthetics.

So, I'm putting up a new signature line.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Those boneheads are bitching about this site being called Objectivist. That's good. I want more.

The branding is working.

I want there to be a BIG difference in everybody's mind that the tribalism, bigotry and subjective irrational nastiness those guys practice in their normal everyday postings has nothing to do with Objectivism as I understand it.

I personally have nothing but the word "Objectivism" in common with those boneheads. I despise them.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

I don't despise them. I despise many of their posts. The big exception is Linz, for whom I have profound contempt. I see James Valliant as consumed by his own shallowness--or, to change metaphors, as in over his head dealing with issues and people he really doesn't understand. His mentor, Leonard Peikoff, does. Peikoff has embraced Objectivism like a life preserver not daring to let go, pretending he's captain of a powerful ship. In that role he's been pretty good and pretty worthless, except for OPAR. Aside from that, I suspect his best work is his lectures on English, not his almost countless other lectures. He was in the English department at Brooklyn Poly. I assume he taught English and maybe some philosophy.

--Brant

Edited June 10, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

The crucial difference lies in the word "follower." I believe with all my mind, body, heart and soul that the best way to practice Objectivism or any body of honest ideas is to use your own mind.

If there is anything to worship in life, the sacredness of your own mind is one of them. By "following," you give it up.

Those boneheads want a tribe. Notice that they are even referring to OL as if it were a movement of some sort. They don't understand what being independent means, despite all the Objectivist rhetoric they digested.

There are only intelligent independent individuals on this site. But this reality is foreign to the world-view of the boneheads. They need a tribe to belong to so they can give up their minds. (There. I just did a Rand. But it is true and I point to their acts as evidence.)

I despise power-mongers. I'm deadly serious about that. Thus, I despise the preacher-wannabes on Solo Passion.

Michael

[Mike11]

Again,

Thanks to all the fine folks providing an evisceration of the latest Roidian escapades.

With time and effort these assaults will, eventually, bring the dishonesty to a halt. I notice forums like 4aynrandfans an OO.net don't seem to talk about PARC anymore, despite older pre-release glee.

[Brant Gaede]

Joe Maurone is on my case again about my signature line. For the record I did not delete it because of him. I deleted it before his original post about it. I did put up my new signature line partially in response to that post. His beef is he thinks you're not an Objectivist if you're not in the Orthodox tribe. Maurone does me the honor of not mentioning me by name. I suppose he's trying to make me a generic representative of posters on OL, turn OL into another tribe. Sorry, it's tribe vrs not a tribe. BTW, Maurone, I don't use the word "selfishness" in regards the Objectivist ethics because Rand totally and completely misused it for polemical purposes by changing its definition, although she said hers was the "dictionary definition" never yet found by anyone but her.

--Brant

Edited June 10, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[william.scherk]

Good Lord! He quoted me twice from one post, but he rendered one quote for the beginning of his silliness and then put the rest further down! And nothing about the rest I said or what I was responding to!

I've been PARCED!

I added to the, um, contextual depth of the thread in a note called They paved paradise and put up a PARCing lot. I noted a couple of answers to Valliant's queries. Oddly enough, they were in the same cherry orchard, sometimes on the same tree from which he took his trimmings.

It is encouraging as ever to have some biplay between the sister-lists. If only Seddon and Sciabarra can be forked up as exemplars of honourable critics, Valliant may feel obliged to navigate the depths of what Lindsay refers to as the sewers here at OL.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

With time and effort these assaults will, eventually, bring the dishonesty to a halt. I notice forums like 4aynrandfans an OO.net don't seem to talk about PARC anymore, despite older pre-release glee.

Joel,

Yup.

Once this thing blows over and PARC is no longer discussed on OL, I predict it will not be discussed hardly anywhere at all except for feeble attempts at ressurection on Siberia Passion. It is alive right now because a few critics are discussing it and inadvertently pushing Valliant into a meltdown.

(They aren't doing that on purpose. He is melting down because he is confronted with the clarity of his own boneheadedness, and he is intelligent enough to see the contradictions and inaccuracies he has presented to the world in public. That sucks when you are a brave knight out to save Rand's honor at all costs.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Total meltdown, but not Valliant this time. See here by Perigo:

Ah, what the hell!?

definitive reassurance that the world doesn't belong to squalid Brandroids. Thank Galt!

For those who don't want to click on the link in the quote, it goes to a YouTube video of a Van Cliburn piano and orchestra concert in Moscow.

I didn't know that Van Cliburn knew Perigo, hated Barbara Branden and worshipped Ayn Rand.

Hmmmmm...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Good Lord! He quoted me twice from one post, but he rendered one quote for the beginning of his silliness and then put the rest further down! And nothing about the rest I said or what I was responding to!

I've been PARCED!

I added to the, um, contextual depth of the thread in a note called They paved paradise and put up a PARCing lot. I noted a couple of answers to Valliant's queries. Oddly enough, they were in the same cherry orchard, sometimes on the same tree from which he took his trimmings.

It is encouraging as ever to have some biplay between the sister-lists. If only Seddon and Sciabarra can be forked up as exemplars of honourable critics, Valliant may feel obliged to navigate the depths of what Lindsay refers to as the sewers here at OL.

I enjoyed what you did over there.

I don't know how Linz puts "Total Passion for the Total Height" against his inveterate name-calling. Strange juxtaposition.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

I've been PARCED!

I added to the, um, contextual depth of the thread in a note called They paved paradise and put up a PARCing lot. [....]

Clever PARC Plays, both of you.

I don't know how Linz puts "Total Passion for the Total Height" against his inveterate name-calling. Strange juxtaposition.

He considers his inveterate name-calling a prime exhibit of his Total Passion for the Total Height! A passionate valuer must passionately hate the evil and never hesitate to call the evil by its true name.

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

Reading the morning paper, I note the following quote by Eric Hoffer:

"A preoccupation wiht the future not only prevents us from seeing the present as it is but often prompts us to rearrange the past."

Eric Hoffer, The Passionate State of Mind (1954)

I find it fascinating that within the nominal "Objectivist" movement we find people so determined to ignore reality, pretend that A is not A, and ignore simple documented facts of history. PARC is a tribute to the ability of the human mind to rationalize and come up with "arguments" for the obviously false, when such arguments serve to support a desired image of the past. (See Neil's detailed posts for the specifics.)

Ayn Rand did so much which is worthy of admiration. It is sad that some find her accomplishments insufficient, and have to attempt to falsify the past to present an "enhanced, director's version" of her life. She stands quite well on her own.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Ellen Stuttle]

So what IS he saying?

As best I can tell from Valliant's reply -- The Astonishing Thing -- to William's They paved paradise and put up a PARCing lot, he's denying holding the belief that "[Rand] indeed was such a figure as those she projected as ideals."

Ms. Stuttle's quotations hardly prove her bizarre claims about PARC or me, personally, of course, and quoting them back won't make them do so, either. They do not imply "perfection" in any way, for example, even in some "operative" sense.

The quotations to which he refers are excerpts from the Introduction to his own book. (The full post is here.)

The claims to which he refers are these:

Valliant, today, keeps disclaiming any belief that Ayn Rand was "perfect." [....]

The following passage [from his Introduction] I think makes clear Valliant's actual "message" on the subject of Ayn Rand's moral status: the message that she indeed was such a figure as those she projected as ideals.

How have I made "bizarre" claims? IS he saying that he DOESN'T think that "[Rand] indeed was such a figure as those she projected as ideals"?

It would be helpful in deciphering what he thinks his message is if he'd give a direct answer to the question.

Ellen

PS: In keeping with his troubles reading and quoting sources, he's attributed to me something William quoted Jonathan as saying (here), viz., "I'd have to get back to you with her exact words."

___

[Mike11]

Character assassination ought to be easier than this. Most of the criticisms I've read of PARC have been Jim's inability to get dates, places and names correct as well as displaying the typical ARI crowd reading comprehension disorder (PAR's foot note on the diet pills for example). You'd think given the ARI's financial resources they could have written something of far greater quality.

Then again I haven't read the book yet so it might be of generally high quality and insight with only a few minor flaws....

Sometimes I crack me up.

A lot of the criticisms of PARC, IMHO, apply equally to every other text produced by the ARI. Selective memory, myth making, absurd ideological extensions of mundane occurrences...

About PARC's support withering, are ARI folks using it at all in their propaganda war currently? "Fact and Value" and "Libertarianism: The Corruption of Liberty" are, from what I understand, the two key screeds at this point. What place does PARC have?

Will it take its trip down the memory hole in the coming years? Burned up like so many affair denials?

[Robert Campbell]

About PARC's support withering, are ARI folks using it at all in their propaganda war currently? "Fact and Value" and "Libertarianism: The Corruption of Liberty" are, from what I understand, the two key screeds at this point. What place does PARC have?

Will it take its trip down the memory hole in the coming years? Burned up like so many affair denials?

Joel,

Each time I revisit PARC, because Mr. Valliant has posted a chunk of it over at SOLOP, or because I need to check a quotation, I find the book coming across even worse than it did on my last visit. (And I thought PARC was a crappy book the first time I read it.)

Bad as some other ARIan texts are (such as the deservedly infamous "Fact and Value" and "Perversion of Liberty"), PARC is qualitatively worse.

Clearly, when PARC was published, some at ARI were hoping to incorporate into their propaganda. (Opinions about the book were divided from the git-go, however; rumor has it that Harry Binswanger was always staunchly opposed to the project.) But there has been no endorsement of the book, since its publication, by anyone at ARI who actually knew Ayn Rand. Nor has there been any public praise for it out of younger members of the top leadership (has Yaron Brook make any public statements endorsing Mr. Valliant's magnum opus? Onkar Ghate?). Indeed, while Leonard Peikoff obviously blessed the book, or it would have no Part II and no place at the Ayn Rand Bookstore, he has made no recorded public statements in favor of the book post-publication.

Robert Campbell

[Mike11]

Bad as some other ARIan texts are (such as the deservedly infamous "Fact and Value" and "Perversion of Liberty"), PARC is qualitatively worse.

Clearly, when PARC was published, some at ARI were hoping to incorporate into their propaganda. (Opinions about the book were divided from the git-go, however; rumor has it that Harry Binswanger was always staunchly opposed to the project.) But there has been no endorsement of the book, since its publication, by anyone at ARI who actually knew Ayn Rand. Nor has there been any public praise for it out of younger members of the top leadership (has Yaron Brook make any public statements endorsing Mr. Valliant's magnum opus? Onkar Ghate?). Indeed, while Leonard Peikoff obviously blessed the book, or it would have no Part II and no place at the Ayn Rand Bookstore, he has made no recorded public statements in favor of the book post-publication.

Robert Campbell

Qualitatively worse!? Holy.

Thanks for the look at the ARI higher ups. That's really incredible silence given the book's high pretensions. So Valliant is isolated both from the typical Randroid and the ARI, what a complete PR disaster.

B) B) ;) :thumbsup: :w00t: :yes: :sorcerer: :santa: :cheer: :afro:

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know how Linz puts "Total Passion for the Total Height" against his inveterate name-calling. Strange juxtaposition.

He considers his inveterate name-calling a prime exhibit of his Total Passion for the Total Height! A passionate valuer must passionately hate the evil and never hesitate to call the evil by its true name.

Name-calling in my life generally died out after junior high-school where it was practiced by the cognitively challenged of cliques. The best name-caller was the clique's alpha male. Girls were probably even worse with each other. In high school such became out and out bullies, but that didn't travel to college. The basic problem wasn't the kids who did this but the mini-prison structure of schools that made it impossible just to walk away from the situation. If parents and children merely transferred to schools that didn't tolerate such crap, the bad schools would soon set things right or go out of business. If I had a kid in school--I wouldn't if I had a kid--I'd see to it that he took karate for self confidence and teach him to kick the name-caller in the shins and the bully in the balls. Never mind the possibility of getting beat up. Let the bullies know bullying behavior means there's going to be a fight regardless. And regardless of this approach it is not to be tolerated but dealt with as soon as possible by him or me, his parent. I like the story from How Green Was My Valley where the Roddy McDowell Character gets beat up at school. Two friends of the family teach him how to box. Roddy then wipes the floor with the bully only to have the fight broken up by the teacher who then unjustly punishes him for fighting. When the two friends find out what happened they show up at school and walk up to the teacher and use him as a teaching dummy as they punch him back and forth in a *friendly* way.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So Valliant is isolated both from the typical Randroid and the ARI, what a complete PR disaster.

Joel,

This is precisely my point. Siberia Passion and OL are the only two games in town left for Valliant. If he doesn't play there, he doesn't play.

I suspect that interest on OL will settle down after a while. I notice that when this happens, as it has in the past, the posters on Siberia Passion don't comment on PARC. Nobody else does either. Comment-wise about PARC, Amazon died dead. The forums died dead. The blogs died dead. There is nothing in print ever.

Blessed silence as the memory abyss looms ominously in front of Valliant.

This is the reason he started posting whole chapters of the book over there. Soon he is going to run out of chapters and excerpts. The PARC-luvin posse dudes aren't very creative, so I don't know what they will come up with after that. I don't expect much.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I sometimes get a huge bellylaugh out of the Pavlovian responses you and William evoke out of Valliant (and some other reactions by his 2 or 3 cheerleaders) on Siberia Passion.

Pavlovian reaction No. 1: Mention something you said, but repeat a long list of arguments almost verbatim from PARC as rebuttal.

Pavlovian reaction No. 2: Proclaim that you did not answer some questions (although nobody can ever figure out what questions he means).

Pavlovian reaction No. 3: Proclaim victory for one or another point where you did not answer an unknown question (usually several times in a post).

Pavlovian reaction No. 4: Claim that "everybody" is still waiting for answers from you, when "everybody" means just him.

Diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!!!

There goes the slobbering.

Hey!

Is that a drooling beast?

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

You forgot Mr. Valliant's inevitable claim that his opponent has "conceded" something, when the opponent led with the statement in question, and didn't have to be brought to concede the point at all.

Robert

[Jonathan]

Valliant:

...and we will need to see a whole lot more fancy footwork for me to see a "contradiction," much less to morally judge Rand from her comments on architecture as an art form.

So, Rand defines art as a recreation of reality, and says that art cannot serve a utilitarian purpose, yet she also says that architecture is art despite serving a utilitarian purpose and not recreating reality, and Valliant would need to see a whole lot of fancy footwork in order to see a contradiction there?

If Rand had defined "birds" as "warm-blooded, egg-laying, feathered vertebrates" and then claimed that chimney smoke was a type of bird even though it wasn't a warm-blooded, egg-laying, feathered vertebrate, would Valliant need it explained to him in what way she had contradicted herself?

And who said anything about morally judging Rand for her contradictory comments on art and architecture? My point has been that any criticism of Rand or her ideas does NOT necessarily include, or even imply, a moral judgment of her. Rand sometimes contradicted herself, or was wrong, and people who recognize and discuss her errors and contradictions are not necessarily trying to "pull down" James Heaps-Nelson's hero.

Also, I see that WSS neglected to cite, in his post on the same SOLOP thead, my agreement with Hsieh's comments on Rand's dishonesty in To Whom It May Concern, and Valliant and Pigero are either not aware of the fact that I gave it as an example of Rand's dishonesty, or they're pretending that they're not aware of it. I'm disappointed in WSS, not just for the entertainment value that he's deprived us of by not citing my quoting of Hsieh, but, much more importantly, because I fear that the future historians who will one day pore over SOLOP might end up with a false impression of my degree of thoroughness.

In addition to Rand knowingly concocting false reasons in To Whom It May Concern -- lying to those she was addressing -- I think she also breached her own stated convictions by hiding her affair with Branden from her friends, associates and even her enemies. As I said here, the righteous tone of Rand's views on topics such as cowardice, second-handers, appeasement, social metaphysics, courage, independence, betrayal, sacrifice, etc., keeps ringing in my ears. Rand said, "It is understandable that men might seek to hide their vices from the eyes of people whose judgment they respect. But there are men who hide their virtues from the eyes of monsters." She repeatedly scolded the world on the moral depravity of caring what nameless, faceless others think, yet she was so concerned with what others thought that she had to hide her blazing romantic passion for one lover while publicly boasting about her romantic passion for the other -- she felt the need to hide one of her highest values not only from the eyes of "monsters," but from the eyes of her closest friends and associates. Her behavior was that of someone ashamed of what she was doing, and fearful of what others would think.

Also, it appears that Valliant and Pigero might be trying to redefine "harsh judgment" out of existence as it pertains to Rand -- to create a standard of "harshness" by which anything Rand said would not qualify (except, of course, when they think it was virtuous or "KASS" of her to be "harsh"). Do they believe that Rand's statement that homosexuality is "immoral and disgusting" is not an example of a harsh judgement? Is her dismissal of the work of Maxfield Parrish as "trash" (while fawning over mediocre artist José Manuel Capuletti) not a harsh judgement? Is her romanticizing of murderer William Hickman while condemning those who condemned him ("No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...") not a harsh judgement (not to mention a nutty one)?

J

Edited June 12, 2008 by Jonathan