Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Dragonfly]

And I was less then pleased that when I saw his self-published work that he included verbatim several paragraphs of material I had written and been posted to a website, all without giving any citation as to the source, giving the impression he had written the materials.

Hmmm, that sounds somehow familiar...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To wind up this matter, Valliant sort of threw in the towel, but not really: Changed.

The sentence about Hospers in question has been changed simply in order to avoid the controversy.

Now what?

Robert properly questioned whether he was going to abandon "his desperately improvised doctrine of Vallianquoting®." That was the right question, too.

Valliant changed the Hospers quote "simply in order to avoid the controversy." That's one hell of a standard. Does that mean that if we make a bigger controversy, he will withdraw PARC from public circulation? I presume he would want to "avoid the controversy."

Nah...

The problem is that James Valliant is a bonehead.

A person changes a misquote because he was wrong and decided to do it the right way. Period.

Any other standard is boneheaded crap.

"Now what?"

Valliant cannot be trusted to be a reliable source of anything. He just made it clear on capitulating that getting the facts right is not his main motivation, but avoiding the controversy is.

Those who trust that kind of crap deserve what they get.

That's what.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Does Black Knight Valliant understand that making up cock-and-bull stories about quotation practices, in order to avoid admitting how he screwed up, is doing him more harm than ... admitting how he screwed up?

His invention of valliantquoating™ is going to cost him what little remained of his reputation as a writer.

He has now corrected his misquote in the redacted version of Mullah Rand -- "in order to avoid the controversy."

[cross-posted with Michael's]

Edited July 3, 2008 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4787#comment-54689

Another detail of discrepancy to add to those you've already pointed out, William.

Hospers:

[...] I speculated about whether to any extent what we say about sense of life depends on the language we use to characterize it ('emotive meaning' again)."

Valliant:

Apparently, Hospers had also maintained that “what we say about sense of life depends on the language we use” to convey it (i.e., that our understanding of metaphysics— reality—“depends on” language.)

You've already indicated that, no, Hospers didn't draw the implication which Valliant reads into his thoughts.

In addition, notice that:

"I speculated about whether to any extent [...]."

Has become in Valliant reportage:

"Apparently, Hospers had also maintained that [...]."

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Here]

Perspective

Well, I can't control the good folks at Wikipedia, of course, but can we now recognize the near-zero impact of this and get back to something real?

He implies that "the good folks at Wikipedia" support his quoting practices, which of course the item he reported from Wikipedia does not. It supports use of scare quotes, but not in some of the multiple ways in which Valliant uses those, and it does not say that making a paraphrase look like a direct quote is acceptable procedure.

Speaking of "perspective," though, my main point in this post:

Almost the entirety of Valliant's case rests on analysis of texts. He has been shown in example after example after example to have done one or more of the following in his rendering of texts:

misquoting

misreporting

distorting by eliding

distorting by changing context

distorting by misrepresenting

What, exactly, "real" is left when all his errors are taken into account?

Zero case, that's what.

All the pesky little details which he dismisses as being irrelevant are the evidence on which his reasoning is based. His reasoing is of the form: Details A-Z; ergo. When details A-Z are shown to be, in one way or another, incorrectly presented, then no "ergo" is left.

Ellen

___

Edited July 3, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Dragonfly]

He has now corrected his misquote in the redacted version of Mullah Rand -- "in order to avoid the controversy."

Perhaps he got some backstage advice that he'd better stop making himself look ridiculous. It had just become too embarrassing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Almost the entirety of Valliant's case rests on analysis of texts.

Ellen,

Not true!

Valliant also constantly uses sources he refuses to name on principle, and he never says whether they communicated with him by oral or written means.

Michael

[merjet]

Even after the change, Valliant's words remain inaccurate. Taking what has been reported here about the 1990 Liberty article at face value, when Hospers said "if ... exegetical" he referred to what was expected of him, not his performance. Valliant still has it as if Hospers were referring to his performance.

[Neil Parille]

I think Ellen is correct.

For example, when it comes to the Rand/Hospers break, all we have is three sources: Hospers' accounts, Barbara Branden's account and Nathaniel Branden's account. Since Valliant's reading of these texts fails, his case fails as well.

If Valliant has searched the archives and found something relevant or interviewed someone who was at the 1962 seminar, then he should make the results of his research known.

But he shouldn't blame others for missing his "point" when he doesn't have anything to bring to the table except his erroneous reading of the sources.

-NEIL

____

[Ellen Stuttle]

Even after the change, Valliant's words remain inaccurate. Taking what has been reported here about the 1990 Liberty article at face value, when Hospers said "if ... exegetical" he referred to what was expected of him, not his performance. Valliant still has it as if Hospers were referring to his performance.

Actually.... Hospers does refer to his performance in the next sentence:

[Extended excerpt posted here.]

[bold emphasis added.]

Memoir

Conversations With Ayn Rand

by John Hospers

Liberty

Volume 4, Number 1

pp. 51-52

September 1990

[....]

And so it was that on the last Friday night of October 1962, she gave her newly-written paper "Art and Sense of Life" (now included in The Romantic Manifesto) [*]. In general I agreed with it; but a commentator cannot simply say "That was a fine paper" and then sit down. He must say things, if not openly critical, at least challengingly exegetical. I did this--I spoke from brief notes and have only a limited recollection of the points I made. (Perhaps I repressed it because of what happened shortly thereafter.) I was trying to bring out certain implications of her talk. I did not intend to be nasty. My fellow professors at the conference thought I had been very gentle with her. But when Ayn responded in great anger, I could see that she thought I had betrayed her. She lashed out savagely, something I had seen her do before but never with me as the target. Her savagery sowed the seeds of her own destruction with that audience.

[....]

Ellen

___

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

Here is the revised Valliant quote:

In a 1990 memoir published in Liberty magazine, Hospers said that he was being "if not openly critical, at least challengingly exegetical” of Rand, but he was still no more obliging than the Brandens had been about the content of that challenge. However, eight years later, Hospers admitted that it had included certain “mild criticisms” of Objectivism.

Does Hospers say that his targets were "Rand" and "Objectivism"? Valliant makes it sound almost like a personal attack. Hospers describes it as more subdued as I recall -- certain deficiencies of the paper. Hospers certainly doesn't say he was challenging Rand.

This is part of a larger problem in PARC. Valliant had over 400 pages to work with. He had space to insert numerous comments of his own about Rand's journals. Why not provide a couple of block quotes from the accounts of Dr. Hospers, the Blumenthals, etc. and let readers decide for themselves if these descriptions lack the specificity that Valliant thinks is necessary?

-NEIL

____

Edited July 3, 2008 by Neil Parille

[merjet]

Actually.... Hospers does refer to his performance in the next sentence:

True, but you can deduce from that only that his performance was "challengingly exegetical". It's still a misquote because Hospers, when he used those words, was referring to what was expected of him.

If Valliant wrote something like this:

Hospers was "challengingly exegetical" and maybe "openly critical."

then it would not have been a misquote.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Here is the revised Valliant quote:

In a 1990 memoir published in Liberty magazine, Hospers said that he was being "if not openly critical, at least challengingly exegetical” of Rand, but he was still no more obliging than the Brandens had been about the content of that challenge. However, eight years later, Hospers admitted that it had included certain “mild criticisms” of Objectivism.

Does Hospers say that his targets were "Rand" and "Objectivism"? Valliant makes it sound almost like a personal attack. Hospers describes it as more subdued as I recall -- certain deficiencies of the paper. Hospers certainly doesn't say he was challenging Rand.

No, he certainly doesn't. In the next post, I'll copy the entire last segment of his 1998 "Full Context" article.

This is part of a larger problem in PARC. Valliant had over 400 pages to work with. He had space to insert numerous comments of his own about Rand's journals. Why not provide a couple of block quotes from the accounts of Dr. Hospers, the Blumenthals, etc. and let readers decide for themselves if these descriptions lack the specificity that Valliant thinks is necessary?

Let readers decide for themselves?? The very idea! This is someone who announces as of pg. 6 that he'd found the Brandens' accounts to be "monuments of dishonesty" and who has already started talking as if he's demonstrated the accuracy of this description by the second chapter.

Ellen

___

Edited July 4, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Does Hospers say that his targets were "Rand" and "Objectivism"? Valliant makes it sound almost like a personal attack. Hospers describes it as more subdued as I recall -- certain deficiencies of the paper. Hospers certainly doesn't say he was challenging Rand.

Right; he doesn't.

Here is the whole last segment of the "Full Context" article.

http://www.fullcontext.org/backissues/Memo...of_Ayn_Rand.htm

© 1996-2000  Full Context

Rumors persisted, however, of how she would "excommunicate" people: they would say or do something that seemed trivial to others, and she would be done with them forever. Some of them were quite good friends, such as Edith Efron, who cared a great deal for Ayn but who was also cut off. None of this would have happened, they said, ten years before, but with the years she had become more suspicious, testy, impatient—no one was sure why. Quite a few people, it seemed, were suddenly out of her life.

I had known Ayn for two and a half years when it happened to me as well, and it came as a complete surprise to me. As program chairman for the American Society for Aesthetics, I invited her, against the counsel of most of my colleagues in the Society, to give a talk. She consented, provided that I who understood her ideas would be her commentator. By tradition, commentators make criticisms. Mine, I thought, were mild as criticisms go. I wondered publicly about whether every work of art (even mediocre ones) carries with it a sense of life; I mentioned Ayn’s own example of Dinesen (fine writing, but an awful sense of life); I speculated about whether to any extent what we say about sense of life depends on the language we use to characterize it ("emotive meaning" again).

I saw something wrong when I noticed that her remarks in response were icy, sarcastic, even insulting. I never discovered what there was about my remarks that made her "go ballistic." Apparently I had betrayed her, and I had done so publicly, when an academic audience already presumed critical of her might have been turned her way. There was no doubt that she felt deeply hurt. At the party in her room afterward, she would not speak to me, nor would anyone else: word had gone out that I was to be "shunned." I never saw her again.

Walking back to my hotel room (the meeting was in Boston), the voice of Kennedy came over the loud speaker: if Cuba did not withdraw its missiles from Cuba, there might be nuclear war. I felt as if the whole world was coming to an end.

What had I done? Maybe there had been a stridency in my voice that I wasn’t aware of, to prove something to my professional colleagues in the audience. Doubtless she wanted a public vindication, and I, one of the few intellectuals she had taken into her confidence, had shafted her—after she had invested in me so much time and effort.

Crushed at being so suddenly cut off, it took me some months to get over the hurt. I did become faculty adviser to the Ayn Rand Club at Brooklyn College, and then later (after moving to California) to similar clubs at Cal State Los Angeles and at U.S.C. I wrote letters to university presses to get the Den Uyl-Rasmussen anthology on Rand published (as well as Narveson’s The Libertarian Idea) but I bowed out of authoring an essay on Rand’s aesthetics for it. Some years went by before I again felt up to writing anything on Ayn Rand. Finally, after many years, I can view these events with some equanimity.

There is one fond memory of her that above all I shall never forget. When we had our long discussions, and I would finally leave her apartment, whether it was 4 in the morning or 6 or 8, I would go into the hall and ring for the elevator, and she would stand in the doorway and throw me a kiss, saying not "Good night," but rather (something only she would say) "Good premises."

In the ensuing years I have meditated often on those words of farewell, which were also a continuing challenge. I could not claim, but only hope, that I have been able to live up to them. Throughout these years I have hardly been able to remember this little recurring gesture, and its accompanying words, without being reduced to tears.

And now it is April 20, 1998, and after this lapse of years, as Thomas Wolfe wrote in Of Time and the River, "This world, this life, this time, are stranger than a dream."

___

[Brant Gaede]

The intellectual and personal world Ayn Rand lived in makes me think of a large, enveloping womb.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the revised Valliant quote:

In a 1990 memoir published in Liberty magazine, Hospers said that he was being "if not openly critical, at least challengingly exegetical” of Rand, but he was still no more obliging than the Brandens had been about the content of that challenge. However, eight years later, Hospers admitted that it had included certain “mild criticisms” of Objectivism.

Does Hospers say that his targets were "Rand" and "Objectivism"? Valliant makes it sound almost like a personal attack.

Neil,

Obviously this was written to make it sound like a personal attack on Rand. This is more boneheaded crap by insinuation and connotation from Valliant. I even suspect he did it on purpose to spite the fact that he had to make a correction.

A 100% correct meaning would be something like the following:

Hospers said that he was being "if not openly critical, at least challengingly exegetical” of some of Rand's ideas...

That's about as obvious as a 600 gorilla sitting in the living room and only Valliant can't see it.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

(NOTE FROM MSK: There is nothing in this post since the author deleted the content. But I did not delete it because some mentions below refer to a statement here and would not make sense otherwise.)

(NOTE FROM AUTHOR: The author did not delete the content. The author couldn't succeed at posting the content. Apparently there was some kind of inadvertent code in one of the paragraphs of the long AR letter to Hospers copied in #771 which was making the posting procedure not work. I finally had to retype the whole paragraph to get the material to post.)

Edited July 4, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Alfonso Jones]

Ellen -

If only Jim Valliant had said only what you just said in the post above. He would have done much better than what he actually did.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Very funny. Ha, ha. I'm being blocked from posting -- or at least was being blocked.

Try again......

E-

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Maybe the problem is length. I'll try breaking the post into 2 parts.

(1 of 2)

I'm entering into the record here some material which William posted on SOLO:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4787#comment-54616

I think that this material demonstrates in fairly brief form where the problem lay which results in Rand being characterized by such terms as "authoritarian."

Hospers is trying to point out to her that the attitude conveyed in the NBI courses is destructive to encouraging thought. She reacts with defensiveness and speaks of "being penalized, not for a flaw, but for a virtue."

Quoting first the paragraph in which the bold-quoted words appear, she writes:

But I know also that some part of your attack on our certainty and self-confidence comes from modern philosophy, from its epistemological agnosticism. I know that this is a conflict within you. I hope that this letter will help you consider it and to reach some solution. You know that I don't get hurt easily. Of all our many disagreements, this last issue has hurt me; it implied your tolerance of and concern for any weakling's needs, ideas and interests, as against mine; it implied that they must be considered, because they have not developed their minds, but I can claim no consideration because I have. I felt (and knew) that I was being penalized, not for a flaw, but for a virtue—a very steady, patient virtue that has had to endure a great deal for a great many years, without receiving any acknowledgment or any justice. Don't add to that kind of burden. (533-534)

However, Hospers is not attempting to penalize her for a virtue but instead to explain to her that what she's considering a virtuous approach isn't one -- is instead detrimental.

It's the detrimentalness which no one ever succeeded at getting through to her.

Notice that the theme-song of her being penalized for her virtues recurs in her very first diary entries about Nathaniel, entries dated 11-27-67.

She writes:

pg. 244, PARC

[bold emphasis added]

I would be able to accept it [breaking with NB entirely "except 'functionally,' on business"] only by means of dropping my entire estimate or view of him. My estimate would then be: here is a man who, for some reason unknown to me, was unable to live up to his own greatness and mine, and ran from it (particularly mine); he preferred me not to exist; he killed me before my time, as far as he was concerned. So I would have to forget him--as one more, and last, and worst, instance of being penalized for my virtues. This hurts dreadfully. But this is what the present situation is leading me to.

It does not, from anything one can tell, occur to her that it ISN'T "virtues" which are operative but instead attitudes she conveys which are stifling to those around her.

[Continued in the next post.]

___

Edited July 4, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here are the full quotes from letters to Hospers which William posted on SOLO. (I've corrected the typos I noticed.)

In a letter to Rand in 1960, Hospers spoke to the lectures at NBI: "[T]he rather dogmatic and brief presentation, the oversimplification of some points, and the sort of 'I am right and everyone else is wrong' manner of the presentation, tends to MAKE slavish dogmatists out of the audience."

Rand disagreed. Her lectures' aim were not "to provoke intelligent comment," but "to raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair." She was hurt by Hospers "concern for any weakling's needs, ideas, and interests, as against mine; it implied that they must be considered because they have not developed their minds, but I can claim no consideration, because I have."

[bold emphasis added]

[The quote is "From Letters of Ayn Rand (to John Hospers, January 3, 1961)."]

You say that those present at the lecture seemed to accept what they heard without thinking. I am sure that this is true of many people there, and in anyone's lectures anywhere in the world. But what I resent profoundly is your implication that this is what Nathan and I want or seek. You wrote: "I would hate to have anybody accept ANY views, including my own, just on my authority or without giving them due thought; I always prefer intelligent disagreement to undigested agreement." John, have you dropped context to the extent of forgetting to whom you are writing this? To the first person who has made thinking the base of morality; to the only person in the modern world who is fighting for the absolutism of reason and thought, and against any (I repeat: ANY) form of subjectivity, of faith or of surrender to intellectual authority.

You are touching here upon what I regard as the most vicious, false and destructive dichotomy with which modern philosophy has infected modern men: dogmatism vs. skepticism—the idea that certainty implies mystical authoritarianism and that the sole alternative is an attitude of chronic uncertainty, which claims nothing but tentative "probabilities" and tolerates anything. (Or: the idea which equates mysticism with certainty—and reason with Richard Nixon, that is: with an apologetic, mealy-mouthed readiness to compromise.) Observe what is blanked out and swept out of existence by the mere setting up of this dichotomy: rational certainty and rational knowledge.

Does one's choice consist of "intellectual disagreement" or "undigested agreement"? "Undigested agreement" does not interest or concern me (you would be surprised how I treat any person in whom I detect "undigested agreement": you would probably accuse me of "intolerance"). Through all the years that I spent formulating my philosophical system, I was looking desperately for "intelligent agreement" or at least for "intelligent disagreement." I found neither (I am here omitting my personal students). Today, I am not looking for "intelligent disagreement" any longer, and certainly not from children or amateurs (I realize too well that it would be a contradiction in terms). If a professional philosopher disagreed, I would always be interested to know his reasons; but what I am looking for is "intelligent agreement" That is what any thinker looks for, when and if he knows that he has discovered and stated something which is new.

To quote you further: "I do think that the rather dogmatic and brief presentation, the oversimplification of some points, and the sort of 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong' manner of the presentation, tends to MAKE slavish dogmatists out of the audience." In other words, since some people in the audience are unthinking, evading, cowardly, "social metaphysicisns" who are looking for someone else's certainty and are seeking some bandwagon to join, we (Nathan and I) must not admit or project the fact that we are certain of what we say? We must, instead assume the manner which substitutes "it seems to me" for "it is" —the manner which implies: "It seems to me that I may be right, but I would not claim that everyone else is wrong"? Is this what you really expect of us? Haven't you read Atlas Shrugged and what I think of the "it seems to me" school of thought?

And if you think that our certainty intimidates the poor little "social metaphysicisns," what do you think our uncertainty would do to them? Would it make them think independently? You've handled enough students to know full well that it wouldn't. It would merely permit them to play the cynical, irresponsible hooligan act that is so fashionable among today's youth; it would permit them to make loud brash, arbitrary assertions of disagreement, which ignoring or evading everything they heard us say. Just as John Galt would not help Mr. Thompson pretend that he, Galt, had not made his radio speech, so I will not help anyone pretend that Atlas Shrugged has not been written (and neither will Nathan nor any other Objectivist). There are enough people in the world who are busy pretending it; they may continue to do so, but not with my sanction or help.

You write: "And I keep wondering: is the aim of the lectures catechetical or is it to provoke intelligent comment?" Neither. Has no alternative actually occured to you? The aim of the lectures was best expressed by George Washington: "to raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair." That is: to present what we know to be true, as clearly and rationally as we can, and to leave the rest to the intelligence and the honesty of any listener or reader. I have told you here in New York (and the lecture brochure clearly states it explicitly) that "these lectures are not given to convert antagonists." And they most certainly are not given "to provoke intelligent comment," if by that phrase in this context, you meant "to provoke, stimulate or encourage people to disagree with us."

Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion. We grant that most people cannot grasp an entire philosophical system from one novel; so we offer a course of lectures to help them grasp it; and we intend to give many lectures and to write many, many books to help them grasp it, to offer further and further details, elaborations and extensions. But we do not grant that my novel, or any lecture, or any future book, has said nothing. Therefore, we offer these lectures only to those who have understood enough of Atlas Shrugged to agree with its essentials. That some people are attracted, not by any understanding, but by some blind emotions, is their problem, not ours; they are sailing under false colors and it will come out sooner or later. We cannot let them prevent us from addressing those who do seek to understand. And those who seek to understand, do not disagree until they have understood; so if anything is unclear to them, the question period is available and they may ask questions which we are willing to answer; but there is a difference between a question period and a debate.(531-532)

[ . . . .]

I know that part of your attitude on this issue comes from a certain confusion which you might tend to have about your own policy in a university classroom and our policy in these lectures. A teacher in a university has to be concerned, to some extent, with the "psycho-epistemology" of his students, with the development of their minds, with the inculcation of indendent thinking; but even then, only to some extent and not at the expense of the subject being taught. But we are not and do not regard ourselves as teachers; we are not part of a wider program of education, we have nothing resembling exams, we address ourselves to adults and have to leave up to them the full responsibility for learning something from our course. The difference is the same as that between a textbook and a book; people can and do learn from both, but the author's methods and approaches are different.(533)

[ . . . . ]

But I know also that some part of your attack on ouron certainty and self-confidence comes from modern philosophy, from its epistemological agnosticism. I know that this is a conflict within you. I hope that this letter will help you consider it and to reach some solution. You know that I don't get hurt easily. Of all our many disagreements, this last issue has hurt me; it implied your tolerance of and concern for any weakling's needs, ideas and interests, as against mine; it implied that they must be considered, because they have not developed their minds, but I can claim no consideration because I have. I felt (and knew) that I was being penalized, not for a flaw, but for a virtue—a very steady, patient virtue that has had to endure a great deal for a great many years, without receiving any acknowledgment or any justice. Don't add to that kind of burden. (533-534)

___

Edited July 4, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Neil Parille]

In addition to Valliantquoating, there is also Valliantciting. This is a constellation of problems including inaccurate citation, non-existent citation and irrelevant citation.

I'll quote from my first essay:

(Quote: Parille) On pages 69-70 of PARC, Valliant discusses Rand's disapproval of libertarianism and the Libertarian Party ("LP"). According to Valliant, "[t]he Brandens, along with many others, believe that Rand was intolerant and 'close-minded' because she denounced the Libertarian Party." (PARC, p. 70.) In support of his claim that both Brandens and others disagree with Rand's denunciation of the LP, Valliant cites to PAR once and to an article on libertarianism by Official Objectivist Peter Schwartz.

Let's look at the two citations Valliant provides. The first is Peter Schwartz's article "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" published in The Voice of Reason. Its principal targets are Murray Rothbard and Walter Block and doesn't mention either of the Brandens. The second citation is to page 391 of PAR, where Branden discusses two younger writers who wrote about her philosophy. (PARC, p. 70.) Branden references Mimi Gladstein's The Ayn Rand Companion and Doug Rasmussen's The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand. According to Branden, Rand had letters sent to them threatening lawsuits. (PAR, p. 391.) The libertarianism of these authors (if they are both indeed libertarians)(11) isn't mentioned, so again this citation does not help Valliant's case.

(Quote: Parille) After making his unsupported claim that the Brandens consider Rand intolerant for her views on libertarianism, Valliant proceeds to discuss Rand's perceived need for "systematic honesty in forming political and intellectual alliances." He mentions those libertarians who are anarchists and advocate unilateral disarmament. He claims that the differences between Rand and the libertarians were "not so trivial as the critics suppose." (PARC, p. 70.) It isn't clear who Valliant claims the "critics" are -- Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, LP officials, libertarian intellectuals, all of them, some of them?

No citation is given to the supposed "critics."

Most importantly, even if certain people who knew Rand did consider her "intolerant" with respect to libertarianism, why does that make their accounts less trustworthy?

Edited July 4, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

News from Siberia.

At Siberia Passion, there are two very interesting admissions. But first, on June 14, 2008, Perigo made the following announcement (and presumably worked the email grapevine). My emphasis.

The Brandroids are clearly on the offensive again in their campaign to de-heroise Ayn Rand under the guise of combatting a cultist equation of heroism with infallibility, of hero-worship with blind adulation. All those people who gave you "private praise and encouragement" should be speaking out at this time. Nothing less than historical justice for Rand is at stake. Those who stay silent in such circumstances are cowards and traitors.

Well, today is July 4, 2008 and a lot of posts have been made on several threads, but there has been thundering silence from former Valliant supporters except for a peep or two on Siberia Passion itself from nobody important. Did the Objectivist movement suddenly turn into a band of "cowards and traitors"? Here is Perigo's recent take:

Even within Objectivism, which has quite a bit to say about good and evil, thousands remain mute while James Valliant almost single-handedly takes on scum for whom few things are more important than demolishing heroes in general and demonstrating that Ayn Rand was not a hero in particular.

James himself proffers “sanction of the victim” to the obscenely mute because they’re ARI, and thus beyond reproach.

Like hell they are!

Observe that the greatest tenacity on this very board is demonstrated by the very lowest of the scum who leave the supposedly “good” folk here for dead, with few exceptions, in their commitment to what they believe in.

That's the first admission. People are simply not defending Valliant or PARC anymore. (Everybody knows this, of course, but it is good to see this jerk admit it in public.)

Now what can cause all Objectivists to turn into "cowards and traitors"? Is it the fact that Valliant has proven to be a sycophantic bonehead who does not know the rudiments of research and presentation? Is it the fact that Perigo's nasty form of irrational tribalism has become so obvious that he has become an online laughing stock in the Objectivist community, even among the orthodox? I could go on, but I am sure you get the gist.

Well here is the reason this bully and intellectual misfit gives for it: Original Sin.

Yup. From the horse's mouth in that same article:

Evil is motivated; good is indifferent.

If “Original Sin” means anything, it’s that.

In other words, in addition to Objectivists being "cowards and traitors," they are also not motivated in the face of evil. To this dude, it's a human nature thing, a metaphysical thing. All they need to do is bash the people he wants bashed and they will be heroes and "motivated," thus overcome the original sin they were born with.

I swear, when this creep mouths the word "liberty," it is the closest thing to blasphemy I can think of outside of religion.

Valliant's answer?

Heh.

However, ARI -- institutionally -- has no obligation to take a position on PARC whatever.

This is the second admission. ARI is silent and this dude is stating it in public. But look at the reason he gives. How's that for evasion, with a nose stuck right up the rear end of Peikoff?

Valliant's credibility is shot to hell (as is Perigo's). This is as it should be. If someone wishes to make a career almost exclusively out of attacking other people, he should be held to a very high standard of accuracy and understanding. Both these dudes fail miserably in this respect.

That's the reason for silence in the Objectivist world to their clamors for bashing scapegoats.

Objectivists are not "cowards and traitors." Reason is one of the three cardinal values to them and it is attained by the virtue of rationality. When faced with an irrational hatred-spewing mess like these dudes (and they finally understand that this is what it is and it ain't gonna get no better), they just move away.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Here are two more Valliantcites:

(Quote: Valliant) In lectures and interviews, both the Blumenthals and the Holzers have endorsed the portrait drawn by Ms. Branden of Rand the Authoritarian. (PARC, p. 75.)

Which lectures is he talking about? None are cited.

(Quote: Valliant) Pleasant or unpleasant, according to Objectivism, it is morally necessary to make appropriate ethical judgments of others. If this is what the Brandens and their friends now dispute, then they no longer believe in the basics of Rand’s ethics and should say so far more plainly, rather than accuse Rand of hypocrisy. (PARC, p. 85.)

This statement isn't cited. If Valliant has any evidence that the Brandens and their friends (some, all?) don't believe in making appropriate ethical judgments, why doesn't he give us a cite?

-NEIL

____

Edited July 4, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Ellen Stuttle]

I want to draw attention to a clear implication of the material from Rand's own pen which I posted in #770 and #771.

This material demonstrates that what might be called the "tone" of the NBI atmosphere had Rand's approval -- even received her fervent defense upon Hospers' raising objections. An attempt to lay all the cult-like and stultifying-to-thought effects of the NBI atmosphere at Nathaniel's door isn't supportable in the light of Rand's own response to what Hospers was attempting to tell her.

Ellen

___