Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Following up on what Michael said, Valliant has admitted by my count a total of 6 mistakes in PARC. When I and others first pointed them out to him, did he concede that he might be mistaken? No, he engaged in a pattern of verbal abuse and name calling (just look at the issue of the 1981 meeting where Valliant's smarmy attittude was on full display, refusing to answer the simple question of what efforts he took to confirm his conclusion that the meeting never took place).

Just today Valliant conceded for the first time that the change to Penthouse Legend consisted of a change to one line in one performance of the play and not in the play's "production." This mistake was pointed out to him by Chris Sciabarra almost three years ago.

And these are only a small percentage of the misquotes and misreports in his book.

Valliant deserves credit for making these changes, but his modus operandi does not indicate someone who is interested in finding the truth.

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Nother words, he's acting like a lawyer whose duty is to a client who has taken a certain position.

So why might that be the appropriate way for him to behave?

Mike,

I am unsure about the meaning of your statement and question, and if I get it wrong, I apologize and would appreciate a clarification.

If it means what I think it does, I admit that in the USA lawyers are expected to lie in defense of their clients, so they don't really need to make any amends when they are caught lying. Dey are jus doink der jops, Herr Führer! Sieg Heil!

Although I do think that in some circumstances the legal system encourages lawyers to be dishonest, I was actually referring to something else. Valliant said the Ayn Rand archives contained nothing to corroborate that Barbara Branden met with Ayn Rand in 1981. Later he said the archive does contain some such corroboration. That could be a mistake rather than actual dishonesty. But you seemed to complain that he didn't say "I made a mistake" when you thought it was appropriate. Now Valliant could say "As long as I allowed later that the archives do corroborate that the meeting happened, thereby setting the record straight, no one can consider it dishonest." But if he's extremely averse to saying "I made a mistake" when that could be appropriate if we're talking about _him_ rather than about the topic of his book, then we might consider under what circumstances might that behavior be appropriate. It would be appropriate if he had a duty to keep things strictly on the topic of the Brandens and to make whatever case could be made against them consistent with the evidence. Why would he have such a duty to advocate for one side rather than acting like a judge or a scientist weighing the evidence on all sides of the dispute? -- Mike Hardy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would he have such a duty to advocate for one side rather than acting like a judge or a scientist weighing the evidence on all sides of the dispute?

Mike,

It is not a question of duty. It is a question of credibility on the free market.

When I look, I see that Valliant is treated as credible only where zealots write: Web 2.0 (Amazon reader reviews, Wikipedia, blogs of zealots, etc., and they haven't even really used places like MySpace, etc.). I am at a loss to find anywhere else. I can't help but notice that Web 2.0 applications are for free, both for writer and publisher.

And, of course, it is a free market. People are free to take PARC and Valliant as seriously as they want to. They can buy more copies of PARC, quote Vailliant in their writing as an authority, show up at his lectures (if and when he speaks), and so on. But I don't see it happening, not even in the orthodox Objectivist community at large and not even for free.

To be accurate, I do see some activity by a few zealots and I see Valliant posting for free on Solo Passion with precious few people reading what he has to say (i.e., zealots and people like me who are interested in holding his accusations to a higher intellectual standard than he uses). And I see him grateful for what little attention sporadically comes his way whenever someone like Neil Parille, Robert Campbell or William Scherk show up and actually take him seriously for a moment and provide a target for his zealots. Then he and zealots make a show as if there is some huge controversy. But it is always a "straw fire" to use a Brazilian term. Flare-up and poof, it's over.

You may have no objection to Valliant's behavior because of a very remote possibility that he was mistaken and not lying about the archives issue, but you cannot deny that he is a shoddy and lazy scholar. The sources alone in PARC prove this.

Technically, there is a remote possibility that a used-car salesman is not lying when he presents facts to you on selling you a car. You can trust such a source. I will not. I treat Valliant on that level based on his behavior. But he broke no laws. You are free to buy your ideas wherever you wish. I am too. And so is everybody else.

As they are apparently doing.

If Valliant wants to be taken seriously and blast the Brandens, his own house better be in order as regards the behavior he blasts. It isn't and, on looking, he isn't.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] For Rothbard [Nathaniel Branden] was "Hitler."

You write this as if you're quoting Rothbard directly. Please tell us exactly where you read this, lest we become entitled to believe that you're channeling Peter Schwartz.

(I guess "channeling" implies that the source has died. Well, there's "is," and there's "ought to be" ...)

Rothbard slung recriminations to the point of being baroque in his "Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult," and he pushed satire well beyond reasonable boundaries in his "Mozart Was a Red," but as far as I know — and I've read millions of words of his — he never came anywhere near likening Rand or her circle to Nazis.

Let's leave that (low) caliber of personal smearing over at The Atlas Society, shall we?

See "My Break With Branden and the Ayn Rand Cult," Liberty, Sept. 1989 p.28. He used the word "Fuhrer." I remembered "Hitler." I'm not going to keep looking for "Hitler;" that's enough.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Rand's contention (currently a topic on this SOLO thread) that Objectivism was so consistent, logically one either had to accept all of it or none of it, here's a place where she said something to that effect in print. (I think there's also someplace in The Objectivist Newsletter, but I'm not remembering where off-hand.)

Conclusion of

"To Whom It May Concern"

Consistency is one of the cardinal requirements of Objectivism, both philosophically and psychologically. It is a dangerous philosophy to play with or to accept half-way; it will stifle the mind that attempts to do so. In this respect, Objectivism, like reality, is its own avenger.

I regret that the demonstration of this fact had to come in so tragic and ugly a form.

(September 15, 1968)

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Rand's contention (currently a topic on this SOLO thread) that Objectivism was so consistent, logically one either had to accept all of it or none of it, here's a place where she said something to that effect in print. (I think there's also someplace in The Objectivist Newsletter, but I'm not remembering where off-hand.)
Conclusion of

"To Whom It May Concern"

Consistency is one of the cardinal requirements of Objectivism, both philosophically and psychologically. It is a dangerous philosophy to play with or to accept half-way; it will stifle the mind that attempts to do so. In this respect, Objectivism, like reality, is its own avenger.

I regret that the demonstration of this fact had to come in so tragic and ugly a form.

(September 15, 1968)

___

Pure argument from intimidation and a smoke screen.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen and Brant,

The two sentences preceding this passage are just as important:

"If Mr. Branden never intended to correct his contradictions, then he made a mistake about the philosophy he chose to profess: he should have chosen Existentialism, which, recognizing no general principles, gives ample scope to contradictions, to self-exemptions from general rules, to undefined feelings and unknowable whims. If such was the case, he did not belong in Objectivism."

The SOLOPpers are pretending that Ayn Rand's insistence on total acceptance of her ideas was simply a matter of "protecting the brand." What they are overlooking is her obvious belief that anyone who is not a true Objectivist is, or will soon be, foundering in a swamp of irrationality.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen and Brant,

The two sentences preceding this passage are just as important:

"If Mr. Branden never intended to correct his contradictions, then he made a mistake about the philosophy he chose to profess: he should have chosen Existentialism, which, recognizing no general principles, gives ample scope to contradictions, to self-exemptions from general rules, to undefined feelings and unknowable whims. If such was the case, he did not belong in Objectivism."

The SOLOPpers are pretending that Ayn Rand's insistence on total acceptance of her ideas was simply a matter of "protecting the brand." What they are overlooking is her obvious belief that anyone who is not a true Objectivist is, or will soon be, foundering in a swamp of irrationality.

Robert Campbell

Could be, but in this case she is simply using Objectivism as a weapon. This is an example of Rand putting more on her philosophy than is really there. Official Objectivism will do to you just what she said it would, but true philosophy is passive: reality, reason, self interest and individual rights, not everything Rand ever said and published. It wasn't Objectivism that damaged Rand when she sacrificed her life to the god of Atlas Shrugged, it was the sacrifice. It wasn't Objectivism that damaged her, her husband and the Brandens, it was the private adultery, an adultery steeped in dishonesty and moral relativism. It wasn't Objectivism that damaged Nathaniel Branden (and Rand) in the 1960s, it was his dishonesty. Eschewing religion, I haven't studied the Objectivist catechism since the early 70s. I decided to study (aspects of) reality instead. I found that almost all "philosophy" aside from objectivism and some political philosophy is worthless garbage divorced from reality and science.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been put on public notice, folks, by none other than Valliant. See here.

Let me put him on public notice: his words are an irresponsible and baseless defamation of my spotless professional character.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

As an attorney, Valliant should know that you can only be defamed for statement of incorrect fact resulting in perveivable loss, not opinion. I don't ever recall discussing his professional behavior as a lawyer except to notice that he was a government employee. And I learned that from him. Now, if, as an author, I think he acts like a shyster lawyer because of a bunch of boneheaded rhetoric and so forth amidst a metaphorical legal brief like he did with PARC (and I am not alone, as witness the Amazon reviews for an independent venue, but there are others), that is my opinion. He is the one who established the fantasy of lawyer in court of public opinion, not me.

He is a terrible author, too.

:)

For the record, I have very little knowledge of Valliant's performance as a government lawyer and I wouldn't dream of making an opinion about it, much less a statement of fact, unless I became aware of his performance from court records or newspaper accounts. If anything I ever wrote insinuates that I have knowledge of his activities as a government lawyer, let me make it clear that I do not have such knowledge and I will be glad to retract any statement that so insinuates. Translated, that means I do not know if he was a good government lawer or a terrible government lawyer, whether he won the government's cases or lost them, whether he properly prepared his cases for the government or whether he cribbed.

I just don't know. He may have done any of that or all of it at one time or another for all I know.

Dayaamm! I thought he was better than that at being slippery.

Well, I guess I have been notified.

He told me!

Does he wanna sue? Bring it on. It would be a terrible blow to the reputation of a professional attorney to lose in court to an amateur. You need a case before you can sue.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael; Keep it coming. This is getting fun.

The charge has been made that Objectivists sometimes used lawyers as a means of intimidating individuals. Sounds like Valliant is following in their footsteps.

Edited by Chris Grieb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris and Brant,

Certain Objectivists (or people who call themselves that) certainly like to play make-believe at intimidating others. It's almost a pity to show them just how impotent they are in the real world against actual men. Valliant only had power when he was working as a government employee. Without the government as his boss, he is nothing. Philosophically, without ARI backing him, he is nothing as an author.

I wish I could take Valliant seriously because of Rand's journal entries in PARC, but I just can't. Especially because of the arbitrary and unscholarly way he treated Rand's journal entries. But I am not talking about that right now. I am talking here within the context of his lame threats and pompous buffoonery, and that is not to be taken seriously ever by any rational man or woman.

Shame on anybody who gets intimidated into silence because of some boneheaded crap like what he just presented.

In terms of actual impact on the Objectivist world, this dude has been banished to the Objectivist equivalent of Siberia and there he will stay, except for a possible short-lived "poof" here or there. (Frankly, I don't expect to see hardly any of those poofs, either.) If he wasn't formally banished to the Siberia of O-Land, it sure looks that way. Maybe that is just a matter of time due to the huge quantity of research and scholarship flaws in PARC (not to mention those "other" "pesky" integrity issues :) ). After all, there are rational standards that even the most ardent Branden-hater needs to observe to keep his or her public credibility.

(I gotta stop this crap about bashing boneheaded losers... I have real work to do... But this is fun...)

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

He says you said he "lied to the court." I couldn't find where you said that. If you did it's obviously a metaphorical court. I don't know about his ARI banishing. PARC is over three years old. As a book it's pretty worn out of the public interest.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

He might mean my post to Mike Hardy:

If it means what I think it does, I admit that in the USA lawyers are expected to lie in defense of their clients, so they don't really need to make any amends when they are caught lying. Dey are jus doink der jops, Herr Führer! Sieg Heil!

I don't like the practice and I don't condone it as good professional practitioner ethics. I think it's shyster level practice and I would never hire a lawyer who would lie in court for me. (If he would lie to the court, he most certainly will lie to me.)

Heh.

Valliant might have thought I was talking about his professional practice as a government employee. What a bonehead!

Where does he think lawyer jokes come from? Thin air? Ever hear them?

Q. When can you tell a lawyer is lying?

A. When his lips are moving.

There are oodles of them. It is a whole formal category of jokes. My assumption is that this is because, as I said, "in the USA lawyers are expected to lie in defense of their clients." Actually, they are expected to lie, period.

I would not be surprised if Valliant ever lied in court, but I would be basing my lack of surprise on his behavior on Objectivist forums and PARC, not on observing him practice the profession of lawyer. I presume he has never been caught lying in court, but like I said, I would need to see court records to say one way or another. Whether he has actually lied in court and not been caught (or not) is for him to say, not me. I have no knowledge one way or the other.

Thus, anything I could say about that would be an arbitrary assertion. So, for example, if I were to say that James Valliant was a government lawyer of high integrity and had a "spotless professional character," I would actually be making a totally arbitrary assertion as defined by Peikoff, i.e., a statement without cognitive content. None whatsoever. :)

I know that if he were in private practice, I would never hire him. But my reason would be far more serious than the one I gave above.

And for the record, I still do not condone lying in court.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOLOP has become so slow and sticky it's getting too hard to visit.

The slow stickiness of the site is periodic, much worse at some times than at others.

I did catch Linz lying about not coming here. If you read his stuff you'd know he comes here all the time

That comment puts him in a bind: to deny it (unless of course it's quoted there preceding his denial) would be to affirm that he is reading at least this thread.

Multiple someones, for sure, are reading this thread -- more someones than OL regulars. Notice the read count.

Tomorrow I'll post with a serious point concerning AR's chronic implication that to hold philosophic views other than hers was ipso facto a sign of irrationality. Too tired tonight.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, Maestro MSK... I wish I had more time for this but as of late I've been moving into a new condo, started a new job, and am trying to wrap that danged album. BUT, I do have time to say this--

You know I admire you for many reasons, but one of the main ones is your relentless, meticulous saving of things. Lordy, you must have a separate hard drive just to make sure all these chestnuts stay archived, as they should!

And now he's put you on notice, eh? Oh my. You bad, bad monkey, Maestro. Better board up, go to the mattresses, and wait for the Men In Black to confiscate your books and pistols.

Eff him. He had this one coming. There may not be a formal BBQ, but a little freezer burn will do nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A basic complaint against PARC is it is a prosecutor's brief--Valliant threw in everything including the kitchen sink. Now he's threatening Michael with lawyers, sounding something like a thug. I guess yesterday's Internet pressure got to him and he snapped. It seems that he read Michael's article for the first time yesterday. Both Michael and Neil are like dentists who won't stop drilling with Robert dropping in now and then with special instruments.

None of this is my style or comfort zone, but neither was PARC. What goes around comes around. PARC proved Nathaniel Branden was much worse a louse to Ayn Rand than what he admitted to in his memoir and he admitted a lot. It also denigrated Ayn Rand by publishing her notes and thoughts that should have been evaluated and used by serious and competent scholars, not a lawyer. Both Branden and Rand were much better people in those days than you'll find in PARC, which rips them out of their broader contexts both as human beings and regards their work. Whatever their flaws, the Brandens' memoir and biography tried to honor those contexts with Barbara striving mightily with the humanity of it all.

It is not the Brandens who have been avenging themselves on Ayn Rand all these years, it is Leonard Peikoff, who never got to have a life of his own--a life not under the thumb of a real, then as an imagined, Ayn Rand. The proper life of an individual as a human being is not the Eddie Willers of Objectivism.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, Brant, my father was a dentist, as was his father before him. Perhaps I have taken up the family trade, in my own way :)

I think you are right on here, in every respect.

-- PARC has made Nathaniel Branden look worse than he did already

-- PARC has made Ayn Rand look a lot worse than she did already

-- Leonard Peikoff's purported defense of Ayn Rand has badly hurt her reputation, in the years since her death. If your goal was to make her look bad while concealing your true intent, you couldn't plan it any better. First, spend 18 years refusing to respond to an unflattering biography. Then, hand the rebuttal over to a third-rate author who doesn't do any scholarship, has to go to a shady publisher to get his book out, and doesn't know the difference between calling people names on discussion forums and publicizing his opus. In the meantime, emulate most of her worst traits and encourage others to do the same.

Like light from a distant star, points 2 and 3 will eventually reach the zealots.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, it is too hard for me to believe LP did what he did with conscious intent to get back at AR. I don't think there's any good evidence for that, at least none I know of. He's too incompetent considering the life situation he locked himself into. Morally, as with AR, things have to appear okay on the surface no matter what insanity there is below decks. Thus when one looks in the mirror an image of perfect integrity looks back.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I agree—I have no reason to think that Dr. Peikoff has consciously tried to hurt Ayn Rand's reputation.

But he's achieved the same results as he would have if he'd set out to discredit her.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I agree—I have no reason to think that Dr. Peikoff has consciously tried to hurt Ayn Rand's reputation.

But he's achieved the same results as he would have if he'd set out to discredit her.

Robert

Except James Valliant would have stopped him? :)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOLOP has become so slow and sticky it's getting too hard to visit.

The slow stickiness of the site is periodic, much worse at some times than at others.

I did catch Linz lying about not coming here. If you read his stuff you'd know he comes here all the time

That comment puts him in a bind: to deny it (unless of course it's quoted there preceding his denial) would be to affirm that he is reading at least this thread.

Multiple someones, for sure, are reading this thread -- more someones than OL regulars. Notice the read count.

Tomorrow I'll post with a serious point concerning AR's chronic implication that to hold philosophic views other than hers was ipso facto a sign of irrationality. Too tired tonight.

Ellen

___

Interesting enough both OL and SOLOP rank just below 200,000 in Web sites visited (Alexa). Noodle Food is just below 1,000,000. I though Diana was more popular than that.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now