Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Chris Grieb]

Why do I get the idea that somebody is reading OL.

[Rich Engle]

Ok, I skimmed...trying to do a quick uptake here, been out on various missions and maneuvers. Granted I had no Internet for a spell (oh, there's a story there), but nonetheless Answers to Serious Moral Dilemmas fell sharply against circumspection of this shredded horse.

But a man has to be careful. The way I always saw it, there's no doubt that Valliant is the kind of creature capable of re-animating. I shun from criticizing a sick man, especially when it comes to relapses, but on the other hand, it's not unreasonable to posit that the forces of nature chimed in to slow down this placating, platitudinal mongrel.

I'm just saying.

If I had been around, I had the riff. What happened was I saw that National Lampoon movie "Taj." There's a frat house leader named "Pip" in there and for some reason Valliant struck me. Stretchy, to be sure, but I trust my unconscious: there was something there, a chop to be made.

But even then, the Moral Decision, on any given day would have been something like this: Do I...

1. Spend time working out the Pip/Valliant chop, or

2. Go hang out at the pool with my partner's wife, and have her tell me again how she and Mick Jagger, his manager, and a few other people locked themselves in a bathroom before the concert, did coke all night, and watched said manager fall, breaking the porcelain sink he was sitting on?

For the last month, it was always that kind of no-brainer, though I did work on the damn novel when I wasn't sleeping off an all-night recording session.

But enough about me.

So, what is our strategy? What is our party line? From what I see here, It/He whatever is entering some kind of orbital decay, and that's good because it represents natural selection in action (though a few gentle pushes were given here and there, to what true effect I cannot measure).

Is there a risk for me to even write this, because the other camp's need for even a small, smoldering, fire-starting woodchip is so intense? WILL THEY STEAL MY EFFING FIRE?

Ponderous, man...ponderous. Almost as ponderous as my lingering, but dwindling obsession. And I am not alone.

I haven't worked up the fortitude to go on recon. It makes me feel all icky, and dammit, I'm not taking two showers a day just because of THAT.

I suppose I'll go snoop. Somebody explain the invasion plan. Is it like when we hit Berlin?

rde

Edited September 11, 2008 by Rich Engle

[william.scherk]

So, what is our strategy? What is our party line? From what I see here, It/He whatever is entering some kind of orbital decay, and that's good because it represents natural selection in action (though a few gentle pushes were given here and there, to what true effect I cannot measure).

Rich, you are almost as loopy as me.

I will lay out my strategy in depth a little later. For now you have to make do with this:

1. check the online version/chapters of PARC for errors, systematic or otherwise

2. raise the errors with the author, invite comment

3. repeat

-- waiting for Valliant to get back in the game puts both 1 and 2 in suspension, as the chapters so far have been pecked to death already. James had promised before his recent relapse, to usher us into a new tomorrow with a freshly redacted chapter (notes removed, obvious errors and infelicities corrected, a few inline replacement notes inserted).

If you are in the mood for a kind of blended experience of horror/hilarity/vertigo/nausea/deja vu/weightlessness/acceleration stress, let me know. James and I had a lengthy exchange over 'equivocation' that brought me to the edge of madness (his).

If you dare, Rich, begin the countdown to orbit, here, and read down.

[Rich Engle]

Dammit, William...I took the bait.

Some might just call it queasy synchronicity, but I call it portentious, telling metaphysical shit. I made the mistake of trying to eat a bowl of questionably fresh potato salad. The first bite hit my mouth when that exchange popped up, and of course as always reading Valliant induces its own nausea in me. Simultaneously, my partner's son-in-law ran into the bathroom, in a random vomiting attack.

Yeah. For real. OMENS.

God, he is PIP. Pip, Pip, Hurray! There is one thing, though:

"misquoatation."

You'd think a peckish little Pip like him would at least attend to proofing spelling, when going to battle over use of quotes, Aquinas, whatever else.

I usually try on my stuff, but I don't share his dark purposes. He would've made a great Nixon staffer.

So that's all I got out of it, aside from a 3-way nausea moment: a little Nit-Pipping. He's so silly.

But again I say it: a man has to be careful.

Consider this possibility...I think he put out PARC as a "gateway" drug, designed for people just like you and I. You KNOW what's coming...isn't his Old Testament book due out anytime soon? I haven't snooped. This...this would be to PARC as H is to MJ--don't you feel yourself wanting it already?

I'm thinking about it this way: If I truly abstain from that thing when it comes out, I get to do all the meth I want. At least I'll get some work done.

I never bought into his raison d' etre as far as PARC goes. Ayn Rand didn't lose a goddamn ounce of anything because of The Affair, or anything the Brandens ever said or didn't say. Or anything Rand did or said herself. Hell, only a few megadorks even bothered to run that thing down at all. It's a miracle you even find people that remember reading Atlas Shrugged, and they usually just remember it was good for them. He can't be that naive. Same thing with this Old Testament thing. He's a fucking Atheist, he ought to know the score on all that. Again, I do not buy into his supposed purpose there either.

Nope, this was about making a name for himself, and I guess all's fair in love and entertainment. Show biz and celebrity wouldn't be what it is without its gloriously fetid underbelly.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Rich Engle

[Neil Parille]

As I've said, one of the things that is most interesting about PARC is what it says about the Orthodox Objectivist movement.

PARC contains virtually no original research, uses the Brandens and Jeff Walker as its main sources, yet triumphantly claims that it proves the Brandens are demented liars.

And did none of those people who praised the book early on even taken a few minutes to compare what Valliant claims the Brandens said and what they actually said?

-NEIL

____

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tomorrow is going to mark a full month since Valliant sent Britting his note. So far no public statements I know of.

They can hope people will forget. But I will not forget. After all, I'm the one who stated nobody was taking PARC seriously anymore.

Let's see what happens... if anything.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

As I've said, one of the things that is most interesting about PARC is what it says about the Orthodox Objectivist movement.

PARC contains virtually no original research, uses the Brandens and Jeff Walker as its main sources, yet triumphantly claims that it proves the Brandens are demented liars.

And did none of those people who praised the book early on even taken a few minutes to compare what Valliant claims the Brandens said and what they actually said?

-NEIL

____

Neil -

Your question is a good one. It points out a sad fact about what passes for "careful reasoning" even among people who should know better. Instead of careful reasoning and critical examination, one gets cheerleading for the author who tells the reader what he wants to be told.

Bill P

[kiaer.ts]

"Thou little valiant, great in villainy!"

-Shakespeare, King John, 3.I.42

[Barbara Branden]

Peter Reidy: "The policy at ARI is to exclude people only if they've somehow offended the inner circle."

Robert Campbell: "Scholars who are not on the Peikovian radar screen are sometimes allowed access to the Archives. They can be from virtually any school of thought, so long as they have not criticized Ayn Rand in print. It's the "enemies of Objectivism" who aren't allowed in."

Unfortunately, the "don't darken my door" policy at the archives extends beyond those who have offended the inner circle and/or have criticized Rand in print. I know of at least one person who was refused access -- and I've heard about others-- who has never criticized Rand in print nor said or done anything to offend her acolytes. If there is a principle determining who is admitted and who is not, I don't know what it is. Perhaps it is a function of who is standing guard when a particular application is received. Although, of course, its a relief to know that the decisions are not entirely whimsical; no matter who at ARI received an application to visit the archives from Immanuel Kant, Ghengis Khan, or me -- the answer can safely be predicted.

Barbara

[Alfonso Jones]

Although, of course, its a relief to know that the decisions are not entirely whimsical; no matter who at ARI received an application to visit the archives from Immanuel Kant, Ghengis Khan, or me -- the answer can safely be predicted.

Barbara

Barbara -

Now, that one has me alternating between hysterical laughter and mourning. The list...

I suspect that if they were compelled to admit one from the list, it would be Khan. (Since some don't show much evidence of having read very much they might even think he was a villian from Star Trek.)

But the next choice, if they were compelled to admit two of the three - - Barbara Branden or Immanuel Kant? That would require a special answer from Peikoff, I suspect. And who would he choose?

Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

As I have pointed out in previous posts ARI's policy on researchers resembled that of certain religious organizations. I must add that this should not be surprising as ARI thinks the worship of Ayn Rand and Objectivism is a religion.

[Neil Parille]

I haven't heard from the Archives.

-NEIL

____

[Brant Gaede]

I haven't heard from the Archives.

Well, JV seems to be completely out of it becauwse of illness. I've been waiting for everything to flush through before I did another review of PARC for Amazon. I may have to go ahead soon regardless.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

I haven't heard from the Archives.

-NEIL

____

I am not surprised and I don't think anyone else should be either.

[kiaer.ts]

Michael, this thread is fifty pages long. Is there a summary of any new developments?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

LOL...

Unfortunately no. Here is a selective breakdown of the PARC controversy (but there is plenty left out).

For background, Peikoff hates the Brandens and he strongly favors those who show they hate the Brandens and love Rand (and him by extension). This normative approach takes the place of cognitive reality in importance to Peikoff and he will lavish benefits on anyone who fits that bill, even when such person is otherwise seriously flawed. This is how he opened Rand's diaries to Valliant. Now to the events.

1. Before PARC, Valliant had published a critique of both Brandens' works on Casey Fahy's site. This critique (which I read back then but is now unavailable) was heavily influenced by one David P. Hayes, who produced an online bash of The Passion of Ayn Rand. (Hayes also personally assisted Valliant in researching PARC.)

2. Valliant's article came to the attention of Peikoff, who invited him to expand it with excerpts from Rand's journals in the ARI Archives.

3. Valliant wrote and published a book (PARC), but it was a boneheaded one because he is an exceptionally lousy author with extremely flawed research and accuracy standards.

4. PARC was published at a boneheaded subsidy press (Durban House). This tiny press became entangled in a series of controversies from disgruntled authors and watchdog groups for charging money to authors under various guises.

5. PARC got no major traction from any important publication, but Peikoff minions did mention the book (usually with inflated, pompous, sanctimonious, and spiteful text) on free places on the Internet like their blogs, Amazon customer reviews, etc. No one from that group I know of actually paid money for the pleasure of promoting PARC.

6. A few years ago Lindsay Perigo and Barbara Branden used to be involved in the same project: the SoloHQ discussion forum where both published. Perigo's vanity and spite got the best of him and he broke with Barbara over several issues. Then he embraced PARC and pumped it both for revenge against her and as habit (to give vent to his innate spiteful nature). As he had a small amount of influence in the Objectivist world at that time (which thankfully has diminished to near nothing), he was Valliant's most important convert. They became allies in trying to destroy the Brandens.

7. A social climber named Diana Hsieh, who has her sights set on the Objectivist world for some reason, went through TAS and Nathaniel Branden, and decided that the fruit was bigger at ARI. So she made a loud, obnoxious and spiteful conversion. She became a Peikoff minion and strong hater of all things Peikoff hates. As a reward for Perigo embracing PARC, and to prove her sincerity as a convert to doubting ARI people, she started posting on Perigo's new site (Solo Passion) and brought her own supporters with her. (Perigo was essentially kicked off of SoloHQ, although it was orchestrated to appear like a friendly parting of the ways.) Once she got comfortable on SOLOP, she upped the ante and went after another ARI-hatred target, Chris Sciabarra.

An orgy of spite and boneheadedness ensued that is a royal embarrassment to anyone with an ounce of sense. It was very effective propaganda for those who think Objectivism is a cult.

8. Since Perigo is moved by spite for everyone, not just spite for the things Peikoff hates, he turned his spite on Peikoff. (At the time, Peikoff published on his site that those who did not vote Democrat did not understand Objectivism. He did that to get rid of Robert Tracinski and impose his will on ARI. There were too many people disagreeing with him so he lowered the boom in such a manner where allegiance to him would have to take more importance to a minion than independent thinking.) To Perigo's credit, he did not become a Peikoff minion, but bashed Peikoff harshly for irrationality. Thus, Hsieh and her entourage up and left. Valliant stuck around. I believe this was out of gratitude for being taken seriously. But there is the fact that he was not very welcome anywhere else that had a small amount of audience.

9. All during this, Valliant and his friend Fahy (who appears to have some talent as a Sci-Fi/Fantasy author, but is even more of a bonehead than Valliant as an intellectual) unrolled boneheaded post after boneheaded post in discussions about PARC and the issues it dealt with. This exposed Valliant's boneheadedness (which is breathtaking in scope) in so many different facets that his supporters, even Peikoff minions and Branden hate-mongers, gradually drifted away from him and the whole controversy. Nobody believes a lawyer can be such a bonehead as Valliant has shown to be. When they see gobbledygook, they think there must be something that the lawyer saw that escaped them. This natural prejudice carried Valliant for a while. But still, people cannot deny what they read and once the boneheadedness became so obvious as to be undeniable, it was time to jump ship. And jump ship they did.

10. There have been several critiques of PARC that take apart the issues one by one. Neil's Parille's articles are very strong ones, but there are others. These critiques mercilessly exposed Valliant's lack of research standards, his lack of objectivity, his over-reliance on rhetoric to substitute facts, etc. If anyone from Peikoff's minions has been tempted to jump back on ship, they have this in front of them. Only Perigo has shown the willingness to stonewall it and suspend all rational thought. Strangely enough, even Valliant's wife Holly, who used to make her own spite-ladened appearances to defend her hubby, has not posted anywhere in a very long time.

11. I claim that PARC is dead as any kind of reference or influence within the Objectivist world. (One exception: people can read some of Rand's journal entries in PARC, but the entries are not complete and people have to take Valliant's word for it that he did not alter what was published.) In order to counteract all this and regain some credibility, Valliant offered to Neil for him to be able to examine Rand's original documents at the ARI archives and requested this of Jeff Britting. So far, there has been no public announcement of an answer.

My own purpose in having these critical posts and threads up is to intellectually fight against the sense of life and worldview illustrated by the underhanded manipulations of Peikoff's minions. The fact that such a flawed book like PARC by such an incompetent author like Valliant could be written and endorsed with Peikoff's sanction, and promoted by actions of his minions, is proof positive that the issue is not reason versus faith, but faith versus reason. These people claim to be the pinnacle of Objectivism, but they are moved by faith at the root.

I cannot call myself an Objectivist and let that stand without competent protest.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

I wrote the follwing in October 2006:

The Sin against Objectivism (Peikoff as Pontifex)

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Matthew 12:30-31

The sin against the Holy Spirit (The Ruach of the Jewish Kabbalah) is the one unforgivable sin of the Christian New Testament. Why? Because the authority of the Church and the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture is guaranteed by its transmission through the Holy Spirit. One may blaspheme God, and destroy the entire world, and still all manner of sin and blasphemy can be forgiven. But if one denies that Holy Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, documents forgiveness - if one denies that on Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles and conferred upon them the authority to forgive sin - then not only is one denying the possibility of forgiveness, one is denying the possibility of authority in the first place.

"In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life--which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism®, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world." Leonard Peikoff [emphasis added]

The implications here are subtle, but profound. Whoever does not vote a straight Democratic slate is not (just) attacking reason, or not (just) denying reality or not (just) betraying the West - whoever does this is showing that he does not understand that realm over which one man, and one man alone, Leonard Peikoff, has a personal proprietary claim – Objectivism®, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand®. Peikoff's claim as Ayn Rand®'s heir is stronger than that which even the law allows, since the law may confer royalties, not titles. Leonard Peikoff, through the authority invested in him by Rand®, and through the instrument of The Ayn Rand® Institute, has authority over Objectivism® Itself®. Peikoff, and his chosen associates, guard their exclusive claim with a closeness that excels that of the Papacy over its Vatican Archives, which are open without condition to scholars however sympathetic or hostile to the claims of the Bishop of Rome. (Wilson, A.N., The Rise and Fall of the House of Windsor, 1994.) Not only does Peikoff have the authority to loose and bind, he can withhold the text and the gravy train, and redact or release as he wishes. And in every edition of Rand®'s best-selling works comes a little remission, a little indulgence, a little prepaid postcard with the magical words, "If you find the ideas in this book engaging..."

Every religious sect sees other religious sects as its natural enemies. There is little reason for this to be any different with Objectivism®, in so far as it has assumed the form of a church, with loyalty oaths and usage agreements and, if not outright excommunications, then at least shunnings and ex cathedra pronunciations. The fact that Objectivism ® now sees not an ideology but a revealed faith as its greatest enemy (and a faith that is not that of the cutthroats!) as its greatest worldly foe is telling. Not having been raised within or as members of churches, some here may not see naked sectarianism for what it is. There may be personal, professional and financial reasons why some may not wish to make themselves the criticisms that I am making. I bear none of those burdens, and feel no constraint in making these points myself.

This raised a bit of a stir on another website. I decided to post it here for two reasons: to share it, and because the only responses I have received so far on the other website have been in the form of private emails.

[Neil Parille]

Ted,

I think the most significant events since MSK started this post are: (1) Valliant's multiple versions of what access he was given to the Archives; and (2) Valliant's admission that when he puts something inside quote marks, it isn't necessarily an accurate quote (hence, ValliantQuoat).

If you take the time to skim these 50 pages, you will find lots of interesting stuff such as Mayhew's "fuzzy editing" of Rand's Q&A and additional mistakes by Valliant. Ellen Stuttle and I "deconstructed" a paragraph by Valliant about Dr. Hospers and found, as I recall, 6 or 7 mistakes.

-NEIL

____

[Chris Grieb]

Post 993; This is why Neil will never hear from the Ayn Rand Archives.

[Donovan A.]

I was not sure if anyone has posted this already, nor have I read all 50 pages of this thread. I plan on doing so, when and if I have time.

Understanding Objectivism CD 11 (Disc 2)

Track 4: 11:04

Question: “It’s easy for you to dismiss outright the Libertarian biographies of Ayn Rand because you knew her so closely. But there’s no other sources of such information maybe it would be useful if you could comment at length on at least one of these books so we can know which of these facts are true and which is misrepresentation. Ayn Rand is very dear to us as a great person not only as an author.”

Answer by Leonard Peikoff: “Well I would regard commenting on these books that are forthcoming on of which I know really as an issue of the sanction of evil and I would not do it. I know the authors in some cases. These books got willful falsehoods, motivated by malice mixed into the text. I simply would not ever make a comment on a book that I know is of that nature. I appreciate the interest in Ayn Rand’s biography and I certainly do intend to authorized a biography, where I believe that it will be done objectively and not by not for any reason of personal malice and in that case when that happens I will certainly open up all of her papers etc. to such a biographer. But I can tell you that I’m speaking now in December of 1983, I have not done that, and I will not not, now not nor ever have a comment on some of the forthcoming biographies. For the reason that I mentioned, I would consider it immoral on my part to comment. To even get to the point of distinguishing this page was true and this page was false. On exactly the grounds that I would not take some libel from the Nazi party against the Jews and say: well now on page 34 maybe he made a good point, but the first 12 pages are dishonest. In its inception and by its method it is corrupt and the same thing exactly in this case”

*emphasis added by me*

-----------

Isn't this what PARC is? Has Valliant not done exactly what Peikoff said would be immoral and sanctioning evil? Why would someone sign up for a job that Peikff himself would not do on moral grounds?

Edited February 1, 2009 by Donovan A.

[Neil Parille]

According to Valliant, Peikoff saw the draft of the first part of PARC and then decided to make the diaries available to Valliant, apparently believing that they strengthened Valliant's case.

It may be that Peikoff had a change of heart, seeing that theBranden view of Rand had become rather widely accepted. And it doesn't seem that the authorized biography will appear any time soon. In other words, just can't beat something with nothing.

It is an interesting quesion whether Peikoff still considers The Passion of Ayn Rand "arbitrary."

-Neil Parille

Edited February 1, 2009 by Neil Parille

[Brant Gaede]

Post 993; This is why Neil will never hear from the Ayn Rand Archives.

I can understand Valliant's health being too poor for him to continue his Internet postings and defenses of PARC. But he was healthy enough to have dinner with Perigo recently so he's healthy enough to make good on getting Neil into the ARI archives. This means he was rebuffed or didn't even try. I suspect the former.

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

I heard a couple months ago from Mr. Perigo that the Archives are closed for the time being and, although they aren't adverse to allowing me access, "there is a long line."

The final part of my critique of PARC concerned chapter 4 ("The Exploiters and the Exploited") which Valliant repeatedly challenged me to critique. Apparently he thinks it is very strong because he supposedly shows that by continuing to endorse their '68 responses theBrandens are still lying. If Valliant is too ill to respond, you'd think one of his friends such as Mr. Perigo would.

-Neil Parille

[Brant Gaede]

I heard a couple months ago from Mr. Perigo that the Archives are closed for the time being and, although they aren't adverse to allowing me access, "there is a long line."

The final part of my critique of PARC concerned chapter 4 ("The Exploiters and the Exploited") which Valliant repeatedly challenged me to critique. Apparently he thinks it is very strong because he supposedly shows that by continuing to endorse their '68 responses theBrandens are still lying. If Valliant is too ill to respond, you'd think one of his friends such as Mr. Perigo would.

-Neil Parille

Perigo won't, I assure you, for he just stated on SOLOP that he's no hero. Too much work. Anyway, he's gotten all the mileage he can out of this and all he can do is come up short and he knows it.

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

(Quote: Gaede) Perigo won't, I assure you, for he just stated on SOLOP that he's no hero. Too much work. Anyway, he's gotten all the mileage he can out of this and all he can do is come up short and he knows it.

I've repeatedly asked Perigo to justify Valliant's claim that in the '68 statement Nathaniel Branden conceded that the '67 loan depleted most of the cash reserves of The Objectvist. Perigo responded that this is all "gnat's poo." Of course Perigo is smart enough to realize that this is the very "poo" that Valliant uses to make his case.

-Neil Parille