Peikoff wows 'em in Q&A as part of

[Roger Bissell]

Becky and I signed up for an "a la carte" item at ARI's annual conference, held this year at Newport Beach, just down the street from us (and from Peikoff's home in Irvine). Here is a brief report about our brief commando raid on the Western Orthodox Church of Objectivism....

The item was a 90-minute question-answer session by Leonard Peikoff, and it was quite good. Some questions were rejected or given short shrift, and some kinds of questions were ruled out from the start (science, politics, and I can't remember the other one). But he still managed to cover a wide range of topics.

One interesting detail: Peikoff claims not to be an epistemologist, and doesn't even want to be a philosopher, but instead prefers philosophical/intellectual analysis of culture (including past culture). To me, this is applied philosophy married with empirical study of culture. But whatever. His OPAR was more a repayment of his debt to Rand than part of his own calling, which is better exemplified in his Ominous Parallels and his forthcoming DIM Hypothesis.

Speaking of DIM, he says that he is going to have a completed (i.e., edited and re-edited) manuscript by the end of 2010, "at the very latest." So, ~maybe~ within five years, we will be able to read and critique (and perhaps get something useful out of) his book. Three books in 35 years (counting from 1968 when he first started lecturing about Ominous Parallels). Not exactly a blistering pace for Rand's self-proclaimed "intellectual heir."

Apparently Harriman is assuming the mantle of Guru of Induction for the ARI wing of the Objectivist movement. Peikoff thinks that he got it basically figured out, but he is leaving it to Harriman to write the book, as well as a related book about the history of modern science (perhaps just physics/chemistry).

Diana Hsieh was just "spitting distance" from me and Becky (no, we didn't spit on her, nor she on us), and she asked about Peikoff's argument that it was morally acceptable to lie in order to protect your privacy. Peikoff didn't want to comment on it. Interestingly, Becky was intending to ask the same question. Both she and I think that Peikoff's claim is bogus, so perhaps his reluctance to talk on it was a sign that he is now unsure, or perhaps even of a different mind, about that issue.

I might write up my recollections (from notes I took) of this Q-A session, but for the next 10 days or so, my time is committed to more important things. (Work, family, travel.) I'll be in the Midwest from July 5 to July 9 and in Northern California from July 10 to July 13, visiting relatives and playing in a jazz festival, respectively. During this period, Becky and I are without child, and believe me, we're already enjoying it to the hilt!

Best to all,

REB

[Greybird]

Thanks for reporting on your excursion into that particular Heart of Darkness.

[...] His OPAR was more a repayment of his debt to Rand than part of his own calling, which is better exemplified in his Ominous Parallels and his forthcoming DIM Hypothesis.

Such debt can, of course, be "repaid," with enough (intellectual) inflation having happened, in nominal terms that involve much less in constant (intellectual) value than was initially provided.

I'd say this happened with OPAR, as is apparent by comparing his strained prose and plodding connections with those of his mentor.

[...] Three books in 35 years (counting from 1968 when he first started lecturing about Ominous Parallels). Not exactly a blistering pace for Rand's self-proclaimed "intellectual heir."

That's nearly 45 years, Rog. Or two generations. I know, it seems like yesterday *sigh*

[...] Diana Hsieh was just "spitting distance" from me and Becky (no, we didn't spit on her, nor she on us)

Now, now, amigo, you should have remembered that LIFE is a series of OPPORTUNITIES that are to be SEIZED and EXPLOITED! Tsk tsk.

{g}

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Thank you for the report. One of these days I might attend one of these things. I believe that many good people are found there, although I personally would not expect to make a social hit.

Diana Hsieh was just "spitting distance" from me and Becky (no, we didn't spit on her, nor she on us), and she asked about Peikoff's argument that it was morally acceptable to lie in order to protect your privacy. Peikoff didn't want to comment on it. Interestingly, Becky was intending to ask the same question. Both she and I think that Peikoff's claim is bogus, so perhaps his reluctance to talk on it was a sign that he is now unsure, or perhaps even of a different mind, about that issue.

It occurred to me that if a person had to ask this of another to know what is right or wrong for their own moral values, they have their priorities all screwed up. And I am not saying that this was the case with either questioner (the actual and the intended). I get the impression both were more interested in what Peikoff had say about it for their own curiosity rather than, say, find out what is correct to think or get permission to think.

This is one of those things where there is no universal rule or universal human value.

If somebody is merely curious and snooping, but I otherwise value that person, there is no reason to lie. "Hey, come on!" or something like that is good enough if I find it inconvenient. I run the risk of losing his or her friendship and respect by outright lying over something unimportant.

If I determine that somebody is a serious threat to a loved one, say Kat, and is snooping to find a leverage point, I will not only lie to that person, I will take his head off and get stomp down ugly depending on the case. I hurt people who try to hurt those I love.

Underneath it all, this really is a no-brainer. Why on earth would I favor a kindergarten rule over the wellbeing of the finest woman alive? On the other hand, why would I lie to a friend if there were no threat?

This is literally a case of the wrong question.

Michael

[Guyau]

The term privacy always brings to my mind a definition I learned many years ago from a 1977 law-review article. Privacy for legal contexts was being defined as autonomy over the intimacies of personal identity.

It always seemed to me a useful concept for moral thinking, too, beyond legal contexts. Most of us have intimacies of personal identity we want to keep, as the song says, “for your eyes only.” Lying to those whose business it is not is right. “Inquiring minds want to know,” but that is just tough.

See also:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/187#comment-19843

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stephen,

I actually agree with you.

I am merely pointing out that privacy is the value, not lying. How you protect your privacy is value judgment on a secondary level, not a primary moral rule.

I would not want to teach a young child that lying is a virtue if he has private matters to protect. He can get seriously hurt doing that. Learning how to lie as a strategy for protecting values is for later in life when issues get more complicated and people generally get nastier.

(btw - I also enjoyed Brokeback Mountain very much. It was a hell of a story about facing conflicts on several levels.)

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> I might write up my recollections (from notes I took) of this Q-A session

Roger, I wish you would. Diana has already done a very detailed recap of some of the questions on Noodlefood - In fact, she's doing a "day by day" transcription of her notes on summer conference highlights. [i wish someone attending TAS's conference -- going on right now -- had her industriousness!]

I recommend people take a look at it. And reading those first might spur you to think of other questions he discussed. Or to add to or correct anything she's reported.

> Thanks for reporting on your excursion into that particular Heart of Darkness. ... OPAR, as is apparent by comparing his strained prose and plodding connections with those of his mentor.

Greybird, I know you were making a quip with the first over-the-top comment. And there is (some) validity in your critique in the second. But it does remind me that, just as ARI fans too often tend to find nothing positive to say or to explore on the TAS side of the Objectivist Iron Curtain, so TAS fans too often tend to find nothing positive to say or explore in the words or works of Peikoff or by ARI thinkers.

[ As an example of exploring what they have to say -- in the case of Noodlefood, I do recommend people go over there once a month at least.

You can see what is happening in the larger and more successful wing of Objectivism. And some of their notable successes. You can just skip past the silly or outrageous or trivial pursuit parts (such as when DMBH gives her own aesthetic opinions and pans something like "300" or "IronMan" because the lead character is not an Objectivist or by distorting the events of the film) or the state of her pets or the ranch her husband bought.

On the other hand, she often gives lots of information and links to what is happening in the Oist world. And, probably because more zealous, is much more thorough and detailed in her reporting of things like the the conferences than are most TAS people who blog or post. ]

[jordanz]

I wish someone attending TAS's conference -- going on right now -- had her industriousness!

I've been way too busy to write anything. But, I promise to write a full report when I get home. Short answer: having a great time - it's a great conference (as usual).

[Greybird]

Phil Coates:

>SR:

>> Thanks [to Roger] for reporting on your excursion into that particular Heart of Darkness.

> Greybird, I know you were making a quip with the first over-the-top comment. [...]

Not really a quip. More of a literary/cinematic allusion. When Peikoff is examined closely, to borrow from Gertrude Stein (I love such juxtapositions), "There's no 'there' there." I can't endure looking at the man for very long when he appears on one of Murdoch's cable channels. He seems to have imploded from his petulance at a world that doesn't want to cooperate with his criticisms.

That someone is this bitter? Who had his career and, ultimately, millions of dollars handed to him by his being the last of the Ten Little Indians standing around Rand? Who has to be told to show some on-air manners by Bill O'Reilly, fer gawdsake? That's "the horror. The horror."

>> [...] OPAR, as is apparent by comparing his strained prose and plodding

>> connections with those of his mentor.

> And there is (some) validity in your critique in the second. But it does remind me that,

> just as ARI fans too often tend to find nothing positive to say or to explore on the TAS

> side of the Objectivist Iron Curtain, so TAS fans too often tend to find nothing positive to

> say or explore in the words or works of Peikoff or by ARI thinkers.

When there IS something positive to talk about, I'll welcome it. I already have in the case of some of the op-eds that ARI puts out, often well-timed and cogent, especially when not done by their usual hack crew. And paying for tens of thousands of copies of Rand's books to be placed in government schools is far better than their not being present at all. (Though their impact on Peikoff's royalty checks doesn't serve to lessen the cynicism.)

For the moment, though, their main public face is to be plumping for incinerating innocents, and I'll have none of it.

Also, your suggestion of TAS or ARI "fans" is an understandable condensation, but it's not literally true for many of us. Fandoms have continually blown up on me, because their most active members end up demanding enthusiasms above principles.

I'm a "fan" of neither. I judge every such institution by its fruits. Too many of those being grown by TAS these days, such as its smears of one of the few men of integrity in public life, and its climbing (belatedly) onto the "anti-Islamist" bandwagon, are starting to rot.

And as for the self-absorbed Mrs. Hsieh, her shilling for the State of Florida's extortion-paid anti-smoking crusade was what first nauseated me, along with her rationalizations therefor. When she had partly redeemed herself, her vendetta against Chris Sciabarra tore any renascent worth apart for me. Noodle soup is more worthwhile than NoodleFood.

[jordanz]

OK - my trip report is up: http://www.jordanzimmerman.com/index.php?m...toc2008%2Findex

[Philip Coates]

Jordan, thanks for the nice summary. A couple questions, if you have time and if you recall while it's still fresh:

1) > Is Limited Government a Small Government....Will Thomas gave a very thought provoking talk exploring what an Objectivist government might look like... [exploring] the possibility that a fairly large governmental apparatus might be required to implement rational laws...a challenge to the idea that limited government is small government.

What were some examples he gave?

2) Was there a single highpoint lecture?

[Philip Coates]

> The New Individualist...I think it's an excellent publication.

Every issue I've seen has had at least one really great article, often several well-written or innovative or thought-provoking articles. Unlike the (sometimes) tone-deaf or unpersuasive ARI op eds, this group of articles would also be persuasive to many who are not already familiar with Ayn Rand's point of view or with Objectivist concepts.

Bidinotto has done a great job. Most impressive: The good quality has been recognized by non-Objectivist elites, by making it an award-winning magazine.

> Information Session on The Atlas Society...delivered the bad news that The New Individualist is costing too much relative to its subscriber base and TAS is reducing it from a monthly to a quarterly.

I remember foreseeing and warning about this sort of thing several years ago when it was clear that TAS was unwilling to start a thorough training program for Objectivists because the money was going to go to this, which was to be their major outreach project. I made several points:

i) All intellectual/political/cultural magazines are money-losers. Even the half-century old flagship of an enormously expanded conservative movement, National Review, is heavily subsidized.

ii) All intellectual/political/cultural magazines have tiny 'core' readerships.

iii) With the growth of conservatism and libertarianism, there are dozens of magazines making similar points (albeit not from an Objectivist slant) about both political and cultural issues: big government, cultural decadence, the need for freedom, etc.

iv) Few people who are 80-90% happy with a culturally conservative or politically libertarian set of publications will pay the money to subscribe to one more such publication.

v) My conclusion was that even the best-written, best-edited magazine was premature for a tiny, shoestring operation like TAS. TAS needs to be much bigger first. The way to grow the movement was and is to stick with their primary 'niche' which is EDUCATION, NOT CURRENT EVENTS:

To *thoroughly* educate people in Objectivism, a difficult philosophy, and associated ideas and skills. To have a formal training program [ in the basics--not 'advanced seminars'...you have to crawl and walk before you can run] , eventually with an array of 10 - 12 lecture courses.

So you don't keep producing HAO's (Half-Assed Objectivists) who bail out like Will Wilkinson, Carolyn Ray, and so many other of the grad students they had been trying to nurture without an actual training program . . . in Oism, communication, professional skills, history, etc.

That's how NBI grew. (Just throw away any cultism, obsequiousness and bootlicking, or other errors).

> to focus TAS on a new [??] mission which is to promote what they are calling Open Objectivism. [Jordan, from summer conference]

They will need to get their act together fairly quickly and start achieving some concrete results, as they will have direct competition right next door very soon, as the very well-organized ARI is expanding and creating another office in Washington, D.C. in September.

> The Trustees want to focus TAS on updating its dilapidated website.

They're going to need to have regular new content to put in the website, not just Ed's occasional op eds. And this is where a 'training program in the basics' such as I recommended to them privately in great detail comes in. You can post clips from it. You will have graduates and students who have learned writing skills as well as Objectivism from it and who can become new writers.

Simply take a look at the spin offs, the new writers from ARI's "Objectivist Academic Center".

[Robert Campbell]

Here's what Diana Hsieh had to say, on NoodleFood, about her question on "privacy lies":

He was particularly generous in answering my question about privacy lies -- or rather in explaining why he couldn't answer my question because he really couldn't say under what conditions lies to protect privacy might be legitimate because it depends too much on the particulars of the situation at hand.

Filtering out the predictable sycophancy, I get the impression that Leonard Peikoff considers the moral issues involved to be somewhat treacherous.

He ought to.

Since Jim Valliant is a ferocious proponent of lies told to protect privacy (to the extent that he still refuses to acknowledge how Dr. Peikoff's statement in OPAR is a departure from all previous nonfiction treatments of Objectivism), I'll be addressing the issue before I bid adieu over at SOLOP.

Mr. Valliant's model is taken from Atlas Shrugged. The trouble with using that epic novel as a model is that it appears to license the conclusion that only certain people are permitted to lie to protect their privacy.

Robert Campbell

[jordanz]

Jordan, thanks for the nice summary. A couple questions, if you have time and if you recall while it's still fresh:

1) > Is Limited Government a Small Government....Will Thomas gave a very thought provoking talk exploring what an Objectivist government might look like... [exploring] the possibility that a fairly large governmental apparatus might be required to implement rational laws...a challenge to the idea that limited government is small government.

What were some examples he gave?

2) Was there a single highpoint lecture?

No real examples. He suggested bodies such as the FDA might need to exist in some form.

I don't want to pick one talk as the best. I couldn't go to half of them, of course, so I need to hear all the tapes to decide. However I liked how David Kelley's talk on logical fallacies kept creeping into other talks. i.e. several people kept pointing out Stolen Concepts and Floating Abstractions.

Edited July 7, 2008 by jordanz

[Roger Bissell]

Steve wrote: "When Peikoff is examined closely, to borrow from Gertrude Stein (I love such juxtapositions), "There's no 'there' there." I can't endure looking at the man for very long when he appears on one of Murdoch's cable channels. He seems to have imploded from his petulance at a world that doesn't want to cooperate with his criticisms. That someone is this bitter? Who had his career and, ultimately, millions of dollars handed to him by his being the last of the Ten Little Indians standing around Rand? Who has to be told to show some on-air manners by Bill O'Reilly, fer gawdsake? That's "the horror. The horror." "

Peikoff is a very intelligent man and a wonderful teacher. He just shouldn't be the one presenting ARI's case in the media. He's too emotional about the whole thing. Yaron B. is a much better spokesman for ARI, even with his Elmer Fudd accent. :rofl:

Steve: "For the moment, though, [ARI's] main public face is to be plumping for incinerating innocents, and I'll have none of it."

I don't see that in their current media efforts at all. When is the most recent time you've seen or read one of the ARI spokesfolks advocating incinerating innocents (in Iran or elsewhere)? :question:

Steve: "Also, your suggestion of TAS or ARI "fans" is an understandable condensation, but it's not literally true for many of us. Fandoms have continually blown up on me, because their most active members end up demanding enthusiasms above principles."

Very good point! :console:

Steve: "I'm a "fan" of neither. I judge every such institution by its fruits. Too many of those being grown by TAS these days, such as its smears of one of the few men of integrity in public life, and its climbing (belatedly) onto the "anti-Islamist" bandwagon, are starting to rot."

Please identify the person you say TAS has smeared. :question:

Steve: "And as for the self-absorbed Mrs. Hsieh, her shilling for the State of Florida's extortion-paid anti-smoking crusade was what first nauseated me, along with her rationalizations therefor. When she had partly redeemed herself, her vendetta against Chris Sciabarra tore any renascent worth apart for me. Noodle soup is more worthwhile than NoodleFood."

I couldn't agree with you more. Her one-sided, authoritarian manner of managing her discussion threads on Noodle Food drove me away, but she totally sealed her doom with me in how she treated Chris. It's hard to imagine anyone being that vicious to another human being -- except self-righteous power-seekers.

REB

P.S. -- a couple of notes to other readers:

1. Why are we discussing TAS's conference here in the ARI folder? Don't such reports and discussions belong in the TAS folder?

2. I will post further comments on Peikoff's Q-A session when I'm back home and have time to write them up.

[Greybird]

Peikoff is a very intelligent man and a wonderful teacher. He just shouldn't be the one presenting ARI's case in the media. He's too emotional about the whole thing. [...]

He may have been a wonderful teacher. I had a quite positive experience three decades ago with his first "Philosophy of Objectivism" series on tape, my only time shelling out directly for his teaching. (OPAR came nowhere close to it.)

Yet I don't see that having persisted. I found his talk-show monologues, less than a decade ago, often far from clear. I last listened to him at great length when ARI had its celebration of The Fountainhead in Hollywood in 2003, from the C-SPAN coverage. (Though I attended the events, I never saw him.) Compared with the clarity of an Eric Daniels or Shoshana Milgram, he was needlessly pungent in expression, arch in mannerisms, and elliptical in exposition. I could barely get through watching the tape.

To me, ARI's case fails in part — beyond its open State-worship, when "fighting Islamists" may be involved — because it's precisely what you allude to. It's filled with emotion, not reason, and with an appeal to unadmitted, mystical collectives, such as "a nation."

Yaron B[rook] is a much better spokesman for ARI, even with his Elmer Fudd accent. :rofl:

Him, I actually met in 2003. He was prattling about having to wear a bulletproof vest when he speaks, because the Islamists wanted to assassinate him for speaking his "truth." The incongruence between the gravity of his fears and his ill-shaped speaking voice almost made me roar with laughter in his presence.

[...] When is the most recent time you've seen or read one of the ARI spokesfolks advocating incinerating innocents (in Iran or elsewhere)?

Come on, Roger. On every appearance by Peikoff on Fox, et al., including his last, where he literally babbled on that topic in front of O'Reilly, who had to rein in his interruptions. In the forums Brook and other ARIans put on, such as one two months ago in Irvine, urging immediate war against Iran. This is their constant recent public face, as against preaching to the orthodox choir.

It's getting op-ed mentions, true enough. Statistics for contributors' benefit, whether the columns are coherent or not. (I could endure running across the occasional such screed if it weren't filled with mystical constructs.)

[...] Please identify the person you say TAS has smeared.

Ron Paul. Whom I've known first-hand for two decades. Bidinotto's farrago against him, including that nearly obscene New Individualist cover, is unacceptable, crass denigration of a man of principle, as I've said here on several occasions. Paul is the only man, in high irony, who actually uses the word and concept of "individualism" on Capitol Hill, as his speeches and Websites attest.

Yet Bob Barr, not one-tenth as principled, a genuine bigot (not what The New Republic fantasized about as to Paul), a statist apologist for various wars all his life — and whose two-year epiphany into the Libertarian Party is not at all long enough yet — gets feted at TAS's seminar. I call that institutional "rot."

[...] Why are we discussing TAS's conference here in the ARI folder? Don't such reports and discussions belong in the TAS folder?

Thread drift. With comparisons being inevitable due to, this year, their being simultaneous events. It'll work itself out. I fear that this site has too many such folders, really — one for both large-scale organizations, treating their dynamics of operation, might be more workable.

[Chris Grieb]

Jordan, thanks for the nice summary. A couple questions, if you have time and if you recall while it's still fresh:

1) > Is Limited Government a Small Government....Will Thomas gave a very thought provoking talk exploring what an Objectivist government might look like... [exploring] the possibility that a fairly large governmental apparatus might be required to implement rational laws...a challenge to the idea that limited government is small government.

What were some examples he gave?

2) Was there a single highpoint lecture?

Phil; I would say Bill Kline's lectures. The most courageous was Christopher Robinson's "They Came for the Sex Offenders.

Edited July 7, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Mark]

Greybird wrote:

“On every appearance by Peikoff on Fox, et al., including his last, where he literally

babbled

on that topic [killing innocents] in front of O’Reilly ... .”

Has anyone posted an audio or video file of that interview?

[Alfonso Jones]

Greybird wrote:

"On every appearance by Peikoff on Fox, et al., including his last, where he literally

babbled

on that topic [killing innocents] in front of O'Reilly ... ."

Has anyone posted an audio or video file of that interview?

Go to YouTube, and search for Peikoff O'Reilly.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Donovan A.]

Here's what Diana Hsieh had to say, on NoodleFood, about her question on "privacy lies":

He was particularly generous in answering my question about privacy lies -- or rather in explaining why he couldn't answer my question because he really couldn't say under what conditions lies to protect privacy might be legitimate because it depends too much on the particulars of the situation at hand.

Filtering out the predictable sycophancy, I get the impression that Leonard Peikoff considers the moral issues involved to be somewhat treacherous.

He ought to.

Since Jim Valliant is a ferocious proponent of lies told to protect privacy (to the extent that he still refuses to acknowledge how Dr. Peikoff's statement in OPAR is a departure from all previous nonfiction treatments of Objectivism), I'll be addressing the issue before I bid adieu over at SOLOP.

Mr. Valliant's model is taken from Atlas Shrugged. The trouble with using that epic novel as a model is that it appears to license the conclusion that only certain people are permitted to lie to protect their privacy.

Robert Campbell

Perhaps this quote would be helpful to Mrs. Hsieh and Dr. Peikoff:

“Honesty does not mean that you owe an answer to any idle or impertinent question anyone chooses to ask you. You do not owe information to those who have no right, purpose or business to question you about matters which do not affect them. In such cases honesty consists of refusing to answer, not of lying. In such cases, you may point out if you care to that their question is improper. But you don’t lower yourself to the status of a liar for the sake of their impropriety. Nor does honesty demand that you become what may be called an aggressive truth teller who volunteers his unsolicited, unflattering opinion to anyone, on any subject, justifying himself in the name of honesty. We all know there is that type also. In situations which do not concern you, or in situations which were not created by your choice and action, but which are imposed on you by others, the moral alternative is not: to tell truth or lie, but to tell the truth or nothing.” - Nathaniel Branden, The Basic Principles of Objectivism, Lecture 11 - Reason and Virtue: Track 3 at 15:26

*Emphasis added by me.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Donovan A.

[ggdwill]

As Mr. Kelly said above, the question Dr. Hsieh asked of Dr. Peikoff really was a "no brainer." This is elementary Objectivism.

My guess as to why she asked it? To be seen asking a question. To keep herself in the purview of ARI's power-brokers. She couldn't restrain her lust for career advancement.

It was my discussion of this very issue which got me kicked off of Noodlefood ( http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/02/get-numbers-right.shtml ). Not only was she being her usual malicious self in that particular post, but a couple days before she had done one of her periodical grave-dances at news of one of TAS's setbacks. I couldn't take it any longer. I couldn't continue to read her blog in good conscience without saying something.

Also, if you want to hear an audio recording of this very exchange, it's on Peikoff's website. It's in one of his Q&A podcasts released a couple months after that conference. I don't think I'm psychologizing when I say that judging from the tone of their voices, Dr. Peikoff seemed surprised that she - of all people - would ask such a silly question, and she seemed rather embarrased for having done so.

Edited August 15, 2009 by ggdwill

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Grant (ggdwill),

Welcome to OL.

I looked at the link you posted and remember reading that thing earlier this year. I remember being amused because of your innocence in the lion's den.

I fully agree with you about aspiring gurus being dangerous. If you read around on OL, you will see that I have held this view for quite a while. One thing that disgusts me about Objectivist gurus (especially the lower-level wannabes) is their bullying of others on their own turf. That has no place in a philosophy of reason, but there it is.

I have come to the conclusion that bullying is a fundamental evil that was not highlighted much in Rand's writing. It took me a while to come to this conclusion, but I have seen too much damage from bullying to ignore it. That goes for bullying in the name of Rand and just plain old garden-variety intimidation and persecution.

Bullying brings out the worst in all of us, both the bullies and the bullied. That goes for me, too. I tend to hurt bullies who come after me and those I care about, but that is not the best in me and that certainly is not macho talk. I don't like that side of me and I don't like what it does to me inside when I have to act against bullies (especially when it starts going to my head). But I don't know of any other way to make them stop. So I hurt them.

All of the school shootings over the last couple of decades here in America had bullying at the root. If that is not proof of the evil of bullying, I don't know what is. Those were kids, not adults. They were still forming their minds. Bullying is much more than initiation of force and this needs to be philosophically fleshed out.

The saying goes that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Within the Objectivist subcommunity, one of the most glaring corruptions from power I observe is bullying. Unfortunately, I see the seeds of this in Rand herself towards the end. What started as her courageously standing up to bullies went too far the other way and at times she bullied the people she knew she held power over.

It's almost funny to see the fundamentalists twist themselves into logical pretzels trying to justify this atrocious behavior (or see the Rand-bashers likewise twist themselves into logical pretzels trying to prove that this was all Rand was about).

Those who are weak-minded and prefer to ape instead of think have Rand's sporadic nastiness and bullying to ape. (That also applies to the Rand-bashers.) And they do. That's almost all several of them do. I believe that's a damn shame in view of the glorious vision Rand projected of the human soul.

The part I wish to preserve of Rand in my own writing is that shining vision. But the bullying?... I cannot endorse or condone it. But I do stand up to it. That often puts me at serious odds with the extremists (all sides) in the Objectivist subcommunity.

Anyway, sorry to ramble. You sound like a good person who made a difficult decision in showing up here. I suspect you were wrestling with the concept of betrayal.

For what it is worth, here is what I see in you right now (but I admit I may be mistaken). I see a person using his own mind to do his own thinking, then acting on it. In other words, I see a person who has unexpectedly been tested by reality and has refused to betray his own mind. I relate strongly to that.

Believe me, your own mind is far more sacred than anything else on earth, more sacred than Rand, certainly more sacred than any spokesperson for her. It is even more sacred than Rand's vision of man (or anyone else's for that matter). Regardless of what or whom a person betrays in life, the one thing he should never betray is his own mind.

And if he has betrayed it (like I once did), he should recover his independent thinking, forgive himself, and swear to never betray it again.

It is better to be wrong and true to your own mind than to betray it and be intimidated into going along with any guru wannabe or crowd, even if they happen to be right and you just haven't figured it out yet. I know, I know... That's easy to say and really tough to live. The good news is that it is only tough until you stop giving a damn about being right to others and get used to laughing off being wrong. Then it is easy to correct yourself. (But boy does it sting at first. I speak from experience.)

The fact is you can easily correct a true-to-itself mind. What can you do with one that lies to itself or fears the crowd, especially an Objectivist crowd?

Of course, it's the utmost supreme best to be true to your own mind and right at the same time. Talk about Objectivist nirvana!

I know this from experience, too...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Rand the bully was much smaller than Rand everything else. She had too many enemies and had to have them. So, since she never backed down it spilled over sometimes to innocent minds who didn't comprehend or understand that you walk in back of the man with the gun, not in front.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I once heard a person characterized as follows and I believe it applies (in general terms) to Rand from what I have read and seen: The person had 97 endearing character qualities and 3 character defects. But those three were among the worst character defects human beings can have.

In Rand's case, I don't know about "3," but I do know about bullying. She did it as she gained power. A lot. A is A.

Anyway, in my view of life, it is entirely possible to cherish the 97 and despise the 3. I know that is possible because that is what I do—and it runs deep inside me.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> bullying. [Rand] did it as she gained power. A lot. [MSK]

> Rand the bully was much smaller than Rand everything else [brant]

Michael and Brant, instead of just vaguely saying she was a bully as though that would be obvious, would it be possible for you each to take the time to give a couple strong examples of your claim where this was -intentional-, rather than merely a side effect of her passion and emphatic certainty?

Bullying is a matter of intention: "Bullying is the act of intentionally causing harm to others, through verbal harassment, physical assault, or other more subtle methods of coercion such as manipulation...In colloquial speech, bullying often describes a form of harassment perpetrated by an abuser who possesses more physical and/or social power and dominance than the victim. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a target. The harassment can be verbal, physical and/or emotional." [wikipedia]

I would suspect that even being open and asking everyone to agree to 'the affair' would perhaps be arm-twisting? But I would surmise that she didn't realize that her 'request' had a certain intimidating force. So that there is not an intention to manipulate. [i know that some of these matters are probably discussed in Barbara's book or Nathaniel's, but I am not going to take any one book or memoir or speech by people close to her, whether somewhat critical or very laudatory (as in the case of Peikoff) as definitive, because both critics and admirers can make mistakes when their emotions get involved. When I read the bios, I will try to read both the critical and the laudatory simultaneously. ]

What I'm looking for is if there was a pattern of behavior outside of the affair - in the intellectual realm of her ideas, her tastes in art, etc.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I am not really interested in why Rand decided to bully ("passion," "emphatic certainty" and all the other excuses) for my value judgment against her bullying. I am only interested in the fact that she did it and she had other options. It is wrong to bully.

Rand would have had to have been mentally deficient to not realize that her approval carried great weight in the souls of young devotees thirsting to acquire her knowledge and insights. (I'm not being sarcastic.) That thirst and state of adulation puts them in a really vulnerable position.

Here is one psychological reality hammered over and over in Rand's literature, but rarely discussed openly as a form of aggression: rejection hurts.

Rejection hurt her (deeply) and it hurt the people she rejected. Rejection hurts me and rejection hurts you. The whole point of Rand's "But I don't think of you" was rejection and portraying the hurt. Out here in reality, whenever a person makes a public display about rejecting anyone, that is a form of trying to hurt that person. I say that with full knowledge that there are some people I reject publicly.

What do you say about a person who makes an issue out of rejecting a young seeker of knowledge in a public setting for asking an innocent question, for as wrong as it sounded? What do you say about public excommunication if that is not bullying? Would you prefer Rand to be an ignoramus who did not know what she was doing? I personally don't think she was unaware of the fact that rejection hurts.

I even remember seeing her at the Ford Hall forum making a "got-him" or "take that" kind of gesture during the Q&A after some remark "trouncing" someone (but not the questioner). I wish I could remember what the issue was. The gesture was slightly thrusting out one arm while slightly lifting a leg back and to the side with a "ha-ha" kind of smirk. I remember being very impressed by that gesture at the time because of 2 reasons: (1) It was out of character for her, and (2) it was so typically something that people I knew from New York and New Jersey did when they were being assholes.

The point is, I am satisfied that Rand was aware of her intention to hurt. I don't find a need to justify her on this. In my mind, she was a brilliant author and thinker who had an ornery side. I don't need a cleaner version to get great benefit from her work.

Michael