Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[william.scherk]

I happen to still have a Xerox of a 3-1/2-single-spaced typed letter which was sent to Elayne Kalberman by Peter and Jan Crosby. [ . . . ] The date is March 27, 1969. It starts by saying that the Crosbys have received Elayne's note, and a returned check, refusing their subscription to The Objectivist; also by indicating that Elayne apparently didn't know the reason why she'd been instructed to cancel the subscription, and that their letter to her was their "first 'public' statement" explaining their viewpoint.

This suggests that some act or omission on the Crosby's part led to the refused subscription. Do you have any idea what that act or omission was? If it's the first 'public' statement, this suggests an earlier private statement. Makes me wonder who would have heard the private statement, and who gave Elayne the instructions. In any case, how would they have got their hands on 'The Paper' -- was it in private distribution? Yikes.

I'd like to type in the entirety of this letter, since I think it well illustrates the atmosphere which pertained at the time of the Break. However, I don't recall from whom I received a Xerox of the letter, and whether or not the Crosbys gave blanket permission to the letter's being distributed.

Hmmm. I would think of it as a 'letter to the editor' that the writers knew would never be published, but which they probably wanted read widely. I appreciate the ethical attempts you make to sustain the Crosbys' privacy, if they are still alive.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I happen to still have a Xerox of a 3-1/2-single-spaced typed letter which was sent to Elayne Kalberman by Peter and Jan Crosby. [ . . . ] The date is March 27, 1969. It starts by saying that the Crosbys have received Elayne's note, and a returned check, refusing their subscription to The Objectivist; also by indicating that Elayne apparently didn't know the reason why she'd been instructed to cancel the subscription, and that their letter to her was their "first 'public' statement" explaining their viewpoint.

This suggests that some act or omission on the Crosby's part led to the refused subscription. Do you have any idea what that act or omission was? If it's the first 'public' statement, this suggests an earlier private statement. Makes me wonder who would have heard the private statement, and who gave Elayne the instructions. In any case, how would they have got their hands on 'The Paper' -- was it in private distribution? Yikes.

William, I'm chuckling (with friendly laughter): Sure is clear that you haven't been "around" O'ist circles much. ;-)

The act or omission is fully obvious from the letter, yes: asking too many questions about the break, and then asking NB and BB for their side of the story and inviting them to talk at the last NBI get-together in Los Angeles. Peter was the L.A. representative for NBI.

[Edit: I don't know specifically who told Elayne to cancel their subscription and remove them from the mailing list, whether AR herself, or Henry Holzer -- probably the most likely person, or possibly Leonard Peikoff.]

No, 'The Paper' wasn't in private distribution. And they didn't get their hands on it, in the sense of being given a copy of it. They said that Nathaniel showed it to them. They were friends of his and BB's.

Ellen

PS: I heard from Barbara. Unfortunately, she's lost touch with the Crosbys in the years since they moved from Los Angeles and doesn't know their current whereabouts.

___

Edited June 20, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Alfonso Jones]

William -

A rough set of guidelines, orthodox objectivist community post-break:

1) Thou shalt not say ANYTHING truly favorable about the Brandens.

2) As much as possible, thou shalt pretend that they never existed, and never made substantial contributions to Objectivist theory, or the Objectivist movement. Thou shalt wield thine airbrush, and verily wipeth them out. Thou needest not remember that A is A in this context.

3) Thou shalt speak quickly and loudly whenever possible to express your contempt for NB and BB.

4) If someone else faileth on any of 1 - 3 above, thou shalt speak quickly and loudly whenever possibly to condemn them as being almost as contemptible as the Brandens.

Got the overall tone? Amazing, but pretty accurate.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited June 20, 2008 by Bill P

[Neil Parille]

There has been some discussion before concerning John Hospers. Here are Rand's oh-so-kind comments on Dr. Hospers from 1972, as reported by the ARI

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

-NEIL

____

[Chris Grieb]

In Washington at the time of the break Bill P has the situation exactly right. The DC Ayn Rand Society dissolved because dissension over a statement that there was to be no discussion by the members of the Society of the Rand-Branden split. Also any discussion was to be in agreement with Ayn Rand's statement. I was not at the meeting but people who were there say it was unbelievable.

Edited June 21, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Ellen Stuttle]

To Brendan Hutching:

I hope you're reading OL and will see this.

You wrote on SOLO:

[Here]

Your [Valliant's] ‘Hungarian’ example shows a similar style: “‘Galt does not contend,’ she shouted, ‘if you have read Atlas Shrugged, if you profess to be an admirer of mine, then you should know that Galt does not ‘strive’, ‘debate’, ‘argue’, or ‘contend’… ‘'If you wish to speak to me, first learn to remember to whom and about what you are speaking!’”

(As an aside, unless they are transcribed from tapes or the like, the above direct quotes of Rand should be taken with a grain of salt. That aside, the important point is whether they sound like the sort of things she would say.)

They do (sound like the sort of things she would say), and notice that, in addition to the reported quick anger against the (possibly) non-skilled-at-English questioner, her anger at the idea of Galt's "contend[ing]" is itself indicative of attitudes counter to "There is no evil thought..."

The pattern of behaviour is based on the evidence, which is that Rand had broken relationships with a number of people with whom she was once intimate or at least collegial: Isobel Paterson, Rothbard, John Hospers, the Brandens, Edith Efron, George Walsh, the Holzers, Philip and Kay Nolte Smith, the Blumenthals.

George Walsh? Where have you heard that she broke with him? George never said that I heard of -- either directly from him or from others who knew him -- that she and he had a break. It would be news to me if she and he did have a falling out.

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

In Washington at the time of the break Bill P has the stituation exactly right. The DC Ayn Rand Society disolved because dissension over a statement that there was to be no discussion by the members of the Society of the Rand-Branden split. I was not at the meeting but people who were there say it was unbelieveable.

Chris -

Do you recall the specifics of the statement? Particularly, the source - if it was sent from New York, ...?

Bill P(Alfonso)

[Brendan Hutching]

Ellen: “They do (sound like the sort of things she would say)…”

Hi Ellen. Thanks for the kind words about my earlier effort. I have no problem with manufactured ‘quotes’ as long as they express accurately what was said, and these quotes ‘sound’ right by comparison with what we know of Rand’s recorded and written expression.

“…and notice that, in addition to the reported quick anger against the (possibly) non-skilled-at-English questioner, her anger at the idea of Galt's "contend[ing]" is itself indicative of attitudes counter to "There is no evil thought...”

Not sure what you mean by the latter. Can you expand?

(As an aside, despite all his editorialising, tendentiousness and ‘gotchas’, Jeff Walkers’s book The Ayn Rand Cult is an important source of information, inpart because of the first-hand interviews with many of the big names.)

“George Walsh?”

I must have inadvertently thrown him in the mix. Sorry about that. I think he broke with ARI. I get a bit confused with the plethora of Rand’s associates, ‘students’, breaks, and the like.

[Chris Grieb]

In Washington at the time of the break Bill P has the situation exactly right. The DC Ayn Rand Society dissolved because dissension over a statement that there was to be no discussion by the members of the Society of the Rand-Branden split. I was not at the meeting but people who were there say it was unbelievable.

Chris -

Do you recall the specifics of the statement? Particularly, the source - if it was sent from New York, ...?

Bill P(Alfonso)

Bill P; The statement was a statement from the membership committee of the Society. One of the members of the committee was Mary Ann Sures.

The statement was read at one meeting with no discussion by the members of the Society. Several members had long discussions about it with other members. At the next meeting the Society dissolved.

I hope that clears things up.

[Alfonso Jones]

Chris -

Thanks. That was helpful.

Bill P

[Neil Parille]

I don't know if I've discussed this before, but one of Valliant's claims is that there isn't enough specificity in the accounts of the various breaks Rand had with others. With respect to the breaks with Efron and Dr. Hospers, he claims that the Brandens have omitted important details.

As Ellen has pointed out, does Valliant have any evidence that Dr. Hospers and the Brandens remember something they aren't telling? The split took place in 1962. Barbara didn't start on her biography until the early 1980. So it wasn't for roughly 20 years later that someone decided to put pen to paper about all this or interview Dr. Hospers.

As far as the lack of details, could Valliant tell us exactly what is missing with respect to the breaks with the Blumenthals, the Kalbermans, the Smiths and Dr. Hessen? I think we know enough to conclude that Rand's conduct was unfortunate to say the least. Even with respect to the Smiths (who I think were wrong to change one line in one performance of the play) Rand's decision to break with them was a bit extreme.

It's also quite typical of Valliant to allege that Rand's "critics" aren't giving us the full scoop when it doesn't appear that he has made any effort to interview these people or consult interviews in the Archives that might shed some light. (Some of these people were interviewed by the Objectivist History Project, for example.) I imagine Leonard Peikoff has some knowledge of these splits. Why didn't Valliant interview him and quote him in PARC?

As a final point, I can't think of anyone who knew Rand supporting PARC (with the exception of Peikoff, and that was before the book came out best I can tell). Yet with respect to The Passion of Ayn Rand, we have Dr. Hessen and Erika Holzer saying the book is accurate. Alan Greenspan wrote a favorable blurb for it. Dr. Blumenthal criticized it (as quoted by Walker), but only to the extent of saying that it whitewashed Rand's bad side.

Edited June 21, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen: “They do (sound like the sort of things she would say)…”

Hi Ellen. Thanks for the kind words about my earlier effort. I have no problem with manufactured ‘quotes’ as long as they express accurately what was said, and these quotes ‘sound’ right by comparison with what we know of Rand’s recorded and written expression.

Re the "kind words," you're welcome. You're doing a very good job of presenting sound reasons for coming to certain conclusions he doesn't want to come to. ;-)

“…and notice that, in addition to the reported quick anger against the (possibly) non-skilled-at-English questioner, her anger at the idea of Galt's "contend[ing]" is itself indicative of attitudes counter to "There is no evil thought...”

Not sure what you mean by the latter. Can you expand?

Yes. She's reported as saying, angrily, that Galt doesn't contend, disupte, debate, or similar terms. In other words, what Galt does is to pronounce: there it is, the correct view, not open to question.

This is not in keeping with Francisco's statement to Rearden in Atlas Shrugged: "There is no evil thought save one, the failure to think." I'm quoting from memory and might not have the second part quite right. The quote isn't grammatically correct; it nevertheless was the single statement which I always took, before I moved to New York, as representing the key best message of the book. I was aware of other indicators, especially in Galt's Speech, which raised doubt as to the extent to which AR meant that. The general tone of the articles in the publications raised many further doubts. Still, it was the "no evil thoughts" sentiment which I would have taken as the core of the good message of Objectivism.

Upon becoming acquainted with the New York Objectivist world, I found that, in practice, there were all sorts of "evil thoughts," along with the attitude that "students [of Objectivism]" were there to learn, to be taught by those who knew, and not to ask searching questions. Her reported strong negative reaction to the idea of Galt "contending that X" I find in keeping with the actual attitude I so often encountered of answers coming from on high, there the answers were, yours was to learn why those answers were right; the answers weren't being presented as hypotheses, as proposals, as door-openers to investigation, but instead with the tone of fiats being delivered.

(As an aside, despite all his editorialising, tendentiousness and ‘gotchas’, Jeff Walkers’s book The Ayn Rand Cult is an important source of information, inpart because of the first-hand interviews with many of the big names.)

Yes. There are places in TARC where I just have to laugh because something or other quoted is so dead-on. For instance, one of my favorites is the comment, I think by Henry Scuoteguazza, that one could hear the bonfires starting all over the country when AR delivered her verdict -- "Trash!" -- about Maxfield Parrish. And there are many other spot-on descriptions from folks who were there.

A certain amount of taking it with a grain of salt is required, however, because I've been told by almost everyone I know who was interviewed that, although Walker quoted them accurately, he quoted them quite selectively, leaving out anything favorable they might have said. Also, I'll repeat a warning I've made a couple other places: Roy Childs' reports in particular have to be viewed as possibly wrong because of Roy's altering details to make a good story. (E.g., there's something Roy says about a person who's a very good friend of mine which he gets entirely wrong -- and I know that she didn't mislead him, since I was there at the intimate -- 4-person -- dinner party when Roy met her. Still, allowing for errors of specifics, Roy gets "atmosphere" right.)

“George Walsh?”

I must have inadvertently thrown him in the mix. Sorry about that. I think he broke with ARI. I get a bit confused with the plethora of Rand’s associates, ‘students’, breaks, and the like.

Thanks for clearing that up. I wondered, Hello?!, since I never heard from anyone, including George, of a rift developing between him and Rand. He had an unusual relationship with her, sort of similar to Hospers', but he seems to have been even defter at mostly managing to diplomatically navigate issues which might rouse her ire. They talked a lot about the history of religion, a special interest of George's. He said that she knew very well the details of the services in the Orthodox Church, since she was taken by her "nurse" (as the children's caretaker was called) to many such services when she was a child. He told how she would sometimes casually correct him on details: "No, George, it goes this way, not that way."

George did break with Leonard Peikoff and ARI when David Kelley started IOS. George was one of the prime movers in the origins of IOS. He gave a speech which thrilled many of us at the inaugural event. He spoke of persons who had felt "homeless" in the Objectivist world, having expected a philosophy of open investigation and reason and not finding that in practice. And he said in a line which received cheers and hurrahs along with the enthused applause that IOS was at last "the home for homeless Objectivists."

George was...special, with his combined erudition, kindliness and an impish humor. I'm among those who really miss him.

Ellen

___

Edited June 21, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Neil Parille]

George Walsh was one of the few (if only) philosophers to "convert" to Objectivism after starting a career in philosophy, from what I can tell.

[Ellen Stuttle]

George Walsh was one of the few (if only) philosophers to "convert" to Objectivism after starting a career in philosophy, from what I can tell.

I'm not sure how to interpret your scare quotes on "convert": If you mean simply an analogy between O'ism and religion, or if you're indicating that George never fully became "an Objectivist." He was Objectivism-very-friendly, not precisely ever "an Objectivist."

Ralph Nelson was another. I never met him, and am not sure of the degree of value he saw in Objectivism. But he was one of the participants at the Epistemology Workshop.

Ellen

___

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

I meant "become an Objectivist." I assumed he considered himself an Objectivist, though I don't know.

[Brant Gaede]

George Walsh had something of a close relationship with Roy Childs and was distraught when he died because Roy took his advice for medical treatment, went to Florida and died there (in 1992). Childs was also very close to George H. Smith. These people were basically always on the outside of Objectivism looking in, albeit with considerable interest, not on the inside looking out. I think Walsh pretty well defined himself by the company he kept.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

George Walsh had something of a close relationship with Roy Childs and was distraught when he died because Roy took his advice for medical treatment, went to Florida and died there (in 1992). Childs was also very close to George H. Smith. These people were basically always on the outside of Objectivism looking in, albeit with considerable interest, not on the inside looking out. I think Walsh pretty well defined himself by the company he kept.

--Brant

Brant,

I wonder where you're getting your description of George Walsh (a) as having "something of a close relationship with Roy Childs"; and (b ) as "always on the outside of Objectivism looking in [...]."

How close a relationship with Roy do you mean? I don't think George Walsh and Roy were anything near so good friends as George Smith and Roy were. George Smith became close friends with Roy back when George moved to California from Arizona, Roy was instrumental in Ghs's writing ATCAG, they remained close through the rest of Roy's life, and the news of Roy's death was a devastating wrench to Ghs. I don't think George Walsh had remotely near so close a relationship. How would he have formed it anyway, logistically? Walsh lived on the East Coast, was quite a bit older than Roy, was pursuing a career as a philosophy professor, wasn't much involved with the "libertarian" folks.

As to "the outside...looking in," although that's accurate in describing George Smith and Roy (whose "Open Letter" got him into the bad books), it does not describe George Walsh. Walsh was a participant in the Epistemology Workshop; he was coming and going at AR's apartment with enough regularity at the time of the AR/NB split as to notice strangeness in the atmosphere; I think he was a direct consultant for ARI; he was on friendly terms with Leonard Peikoff up until the circumstances leading to the split between LP and David Kelley; he was on the advisory board (whatever the exact title of that board) of IOS and good friends with David Kelley. This whole picture is not correctly describable as "outside looking in." He was a near-to-Inner-Circle insider -- although I don't think he ever considered himself precisely "an Objectivist."

Ellen

___

Edited June 21, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Linz, never at a loss for a colorful epithet, is now describing his former ally Diana as "that intellectual whore" -- see.

Speaking of Diana reminds me of something I wanted to ask re the initial topic of this thread, "Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore":

I don't keep tabs on Noodlefood, but I think some of the subscribers here do. Has Diana been saying anything about PARC lately? And does Valliant still post on Noodlefood?

Ellen

___

[Mike11]

I'm going to make a meme of a Valliant pic that reads, "I haz reading dizorderz?"

Robert Campbell on Valliant - http://www.solopassion.com/node/4787#comment-53972

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(As an aside, despite all his editorialising, tendentiousness and 'gotchas', Jeff Walkers's book The Ayn Rand Cult is an important source of information, inpart because of the first-hand interviews with many of the big names.)

Brendan,

Here are a couple of places on OL where we discussed The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walkers: Post 9 in The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth—Part 4—Rand's True Value and here.

Here you will find links to three reviews of Walker's book (one by Chris Sciabarra, one by Richard Lawrence and one by Phil Elmore).

As I stated in one of those posts, the bibliography in TARC is a researcher's dream.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen,

Jim Valliant has left comments on NoodleFood during 2008. The most recent one I could find is a couple of months old.

None of his 2008 comments have been about his book.

Diana Hsieh last mentioned his book in an entry back in March 2007.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

George Walsh had something of a close relationship with Roy Childs and was distraught when he died because Roy took his advice for medical treatment, went to Florida and died there (in 1992). Childs was also very close to George H. Smith. These people were basically always on the outside of Objectivism looking in, albeit with considerable interest, not on the inside looking out. I think Walsh pretty well defined himself by the company he kept.

--Brant

Brant,

I wonder where you're getting your description of George Walsh (a) as having "something of a close relationship with Roy Childs"; and (b ) as "always on the outside of Objectivism looking in [...]."

How close a relationship with Roy do you mean? I don't think George Walsh and Roy were anything near so good friends as George Smith and Roy were. George Smith became close friends with Roy back when George moved to California from Arizona, Roy was instrumental in Ghs's writing ATCAG, they remained close through the rest of Roy's life, and the news of Roy's death was a devastating wrench to Ghs. I don't think George Walsh had remotely near so close a relationship. How would he have formed it anyway, logistically? Walsh lived on the East Coast, was quite a bit older than Roy, was pursuing a career as a philosophy professor, wasn't much involved with the "libertarian" folks.

As to "the outside...looking in," although that's accurate in describing George Smith and Roy (whose "Open Letter" got him into the bad books), it does not describe George Walsh. Walsh was a participant in the Epistemology Workshop; he was coming and going at AR's apartment with enough regularity at the time of the AR/NB split as to notice strangeness in the atmosphere; I think he was a direct consultant for ARI; he was on friendly terms with Leonard Peikoff up until the circumstances leading to the split between LP and David Kelley; he was on the advisory board (whatever the exact title of that board) of IOS and good friends with David Kelley. This whole picture is not correctly describable as "outside looking in." He was a near-to-Inner-Circle insider -- although I don't think he ever considered himself precisely "an Objectivist."

Ellen

Thanks for the info. I have nothing to add except that when one man suggests to another do X and he does then dies and the man is distraught thinking his advice caused that death, "something of a close relationship" seems to apply. (I don't remember where I got this information from.)

--Brant

edit: Oh, if you don't consider yourself "precisely an Objectivist" then you are looking in. I'm thinking psychologically here (orientation), you philosophically.

Edited June 21, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

edit: Oh, if you don't consider yourself "precisely an Objectivist" then you are looking in. I'm thinking psychologically here (orientation), you philosophically.

Sorry to press the point, but I don't understand the distinction you're making. You'd originally written:

These people [George Walsh, George Smith, and Roy Childs] were basically always on the outside of Objectivism looking in, albeit with considerable interest, not on the inside looking out. I think Walsh pretty well defined himself by the company he kept. [emphasis added]

The "company" Walsh kept (though not the only company he kept of course) was that of nearly "Inner Circle." He knew Ayn pretty well; he was at her apartment numerous times; he had conversations with her about such details as the liturgy of the Orthodox Church; he was an associate of Leonard Peikoff's and good friends with David Kelley. That's what I mean by his being an insider not an outsider. George Smith and Roy Childs on the other hand, were never near the Inner Circle. I'm not sure if either even met Ayn Rand. If so, it would have been at a lecture or something like that. They weren't friends of hers. And Roy went into the known Bad Books with his "Open Letter." That's what I mean in describing those two as outsiders not insiders. I'm not speaking about feelings toward Objectivism or exact degree of agreement with Objectivisim.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Jim Valliant has left comments on NoodleFood during 2008. The most recent one I could find is a couple of months old.

None of his 2008 comments have been about his book.

Diana Hsieh last mentioned his book in an entry back in March 2007.

Robert Campbell

Thanks for the information, Robert.

If Diana can be considered a "weathervane," the lack of attention to PARC on Noodlefood does seem indicative of not much interest amongst ARI loyalists.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

And a further note about cancellation of subscriptions to The Objectivist...

Valliant says to Robert C.:

[Here]

You also would have to show that Rand canceled subscriptions for reasons of minor intellectual differences, non-philosophical and non-moral, or for petty reasons.

Finally, of course, you would have to show that Rand's students were aware of these cancelations -- and the weak reasons for them -- at the time.

Only then could we start to infer anything like what's being suggested.

As stated, you have almost conjured the fear of a canceled subscription hanging like a sword over the heads of quivering students, slick from the sweaty dread that any minor deviation will get them the boot.

You don't mean to imply that, do you?

Valliant's description is somewhat overstated but not by a lot. I knew many people who were aware of the cancelled subscriptions post-Break, and of the weak reasons or no reasons given. And who were afraid to write even with questions for fear of their subscription being cancelled.

The Crosbys, in the letter to Elayne Kalberman I've spoken of above -- post #522, post #525, and post #527, say the same of the feeling on the West Coast, that it got so that people thought of writing to The Objectivist as dangerous because they couldn't tell what might be considered an offense which would result in a cancelled subscription.

Ellen

___

Edited June 22, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle