The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Yup, it's over. Unless Jim Valliant returns to SOLOP (doubtful) or Holly Valliant shows up to make an account of herself (close to impossible), there's nothing to add.

A list of deleted references to PARC in Rand-related Wikipedia articles is being temporarily maintained by Richard Lawrence at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RL0919/Old_parc

We can all see for ourselves how irrelevant the insertions tended to be.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

The Lawrence links is an excellent summary of IP160's shenanigans with respect to PARC.

I'd also point out that many of the insertions concern matters (such as Murray Rothbard) that I've never seen Mrs. Valliant express an interest in.

-Neil Parille

[kiaer.ts]

Michael,

Yup, it's over. Unless Jim Valliant returns to SOLOP (doubtful) or Holly Valliant shows up to make an account of herself (close to impossible), there's nothing to add.

A list of deleted references to PARC in Rand-related Wikipedia articles is being temporarily maintained by Richard Lawrence at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RL0919/Old_parc

We can all see for ourselves how irrelevant the insertions tended to be.

Robert Campbell

This is a very interesting page. The first "reference" alone is telling. Rand cautioned Branden not to view her as a goddess in the context of their sexual affair and his seeing her as an object of worship, not as a religious prophet with a revelation in the context of her philosophy as a system. The juxtaposition of that warning and Branden's concern about dogma is thoroughly dishonest, and cannot be an innocent mistake on behalf of someone so familiar with the topic. And this man was a court officer?

Here is a link to the page which will retrieve the information from the history archive even if it is deleted from the live user page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=295826630

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is a very odd thing going on at SLOP. I don't know if you noticed, but several statements by the hapless Valliant tag team on Wikipedia in the backstage comments are now gone. Some of the passages dealt with things like Pelagius1 claiming that she and she along (if it was a she) is responsible for all edits made on Wikipedia under the Valliant household IP, and then trying to push the Wikipedia editors into treating the total innocence of James Valliant as a verified fact.

I finally got around to this. Like I said, I am bored with it.

I was sent a link to the Wikipedia archive where these remarks are still on file. That's a good thing.

Template:Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk/Archive 2

Sorry, but I just don't feel like quoting the passages. I've got other things to do like watch TV...

(yawn...)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since I have momentarily awakened from my PARC-SLOP lethargy, I decided to take a look at the historic, earth-shattering, monumental, epoch-making and anti-hero-diminishing poll that was erected on SLOP on June 8 to try to destroy Barbara Branden, show the credibility of PARC and definitively defend the honor of Ayn Rand so her works can save the whole world unimpeded.

Here is the screen-print I just made (now is June 19):

In about eleven days, there have been 23 people (up from 22 five days ago) who have voted in this poll. It now has 532 views, mostly the voters a few lone souls like me doing repeat views. This poll continues to appear on the front page of SLOP 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on the left sidebar.

There has been no change in the number of voters who voted for one of the two "trash the Brandens" options in the poll: 9 voters.

As Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo has said to great, historic, earth-shattering, monumental, epoch-making and anti-hero-diminishing effect:

"Whole lotta' shakin' going on."

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just saw an interesting post on SLOP on the thread under discussion by Jeff Perren, who is a rather level-headed poster (see here for the full post dated Sat, 2009-06-20 22:22 and called "I Call Foul").

A word of context needs to be mentioned. Mr. Perren made a post expressing exasperated perplexity as to why the crusade against Valliant, then when Robert called him on why he never asked that about the attacks on others by Valliant and supporters, he expressed perplexity about why Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo made crusades against Robert, Neil, the Brandens and others. And he expressed disappointment in the subject matter of PARC (you can see it here if you can find it on SLOP's buggy search link function—it is dated Thu, 2009-06-11 22:03 and called "Fair Questions").

Perigo just recently blasted another poster for fence-sitting without naming him and Mr. Perren thought Perigo was referring to him. (So did I, for that matter.) The first post linked above is Mr. Perren's response.

Now here is the interesting part. Look at what is clear in some of the comments in that post given below (Mr. Perren is addressing Perigo):

I really don't know why you always have to distort my position, why always the blackest interpretation possible of my words. I also don't know whether your distortion is deliberate, in order to make yours appear supportable, or whether you are just being dense.

. . .

Feel free to disagree and allocate your own time as you see fit, but don't mock a reasonable position and choice just because it differs from your own. That's unreasonable, and unjust, not to mention at odds with rational individualism.

. . .

This occasional attempt to paint me as some sort of fence sitter or "rubber tube" is ludicrous. The audience here knows better (and if anyone doubts it they can read my blog or the hundreds of posts I've made here or at the old SOLO). Your attempt is just lending support to my view that you lack objectivity and justice on this issue.

. . .

Man, talk about cherry picking data to make your conclusion come out what you want it to be in the first place...

Tell you what, you post one and then make a little side note that "Hey, Jeff, be sure to comment on this one," and by golly I'll be sure to come a runnin' Massa Perigo. And if I don't say jus' what you think I outta you kin whip yo' lil nigger 'til he gets his mind right, yah? Since you've decided that my time and life are yours to direct, on pain of false, unjust assertions, why just speak right up with how you think I ought to arrange my personal priorities.

What's interesting to me is that Mr. Perren has a very clear notion of what he is talking about in terms of Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo: he distorts what people say, he mocks people who do not agree with him, he mischaracterizes people's intentions on purpose, and he seeks power. That type of clarity (including the right dose of over-the-top tone as mocking) does not come from a single instance of observation. It is accumulated over time.

Which means that Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo is actually being seen for what he is. People (good people like Mr. Perren) are seeing it with laser-targeted clarity and refusing to acknowledge it until the pepper hits their own asshole. Then the whole repertoire of accumulated observations comes out.

This instance is not the first time I have seen this nor is Mr. Perren the only one. I have been through this myself. I am very interested in what causes it.

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Perren finds his comments in that post apt enough to apply—at least in part—to the poster Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo was really blasting, or if he will put the blinders back on since he made a mistake. My money is on the blinders for now, not because Mr. Perren is this or that, but because of the nature of this particular self-induced blindness...

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

and refusing to acknowledge it until the pepper hits their own asshole.

Is this a Portuguese saying?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

LOL...

Actually it is part of one. I still think in Portuguese too much.

The expression is: "pimenta no cú do outro é refresco."

Like many Brazilian sayings, this does not translate well word for word since it evolved over time and the original context got greatly pared down and simplified. It probably comes from a play-on-words of a softdrink commercial or something similar. Here's an approximate "meaning" translation: "Watching others get diarrhea from spicy food is like a cool refreshing drink to some folks."

This is what I thought in the bottom of my mind when I decided to write about the attitude of people who do not acknowledge the damage Objectivist Liar Lindsy Perigo tries to inflict on others until his malice gets aimed at them.

A close term in our culture that is popular these days is borrowed, schadenfreude, which is mostly meant as taking pleasure in the misfortune of others. But as I have seen it used in English, it means something akin to an intense sadistic streak in a person's soul. The person who feels this is an outright villain at that moment. In Brazil, the meaning is more "light" and rueful, aimed at pointing to the lack of compassion in a person that should have been corrected by moral teaching and wasn't (Brazil is predominantly Catholic), so it grew into something ugly.

(I believe the blindness I wrote about is something similar in Objectivism. People who use their own minds should not blank out what they see, I don't care what their reason is.)

In English, I ofter read and hear people use schadenfreude in strong condemnatory tones. The emotion transmitted is disgust at the person feeling this. In Brazil, when I have heard one person say the spicy food expression to another, it is often criticizing the person's behavior as a playful jab in the ribs or as an alert, both meaning, "Stop being so callous." That feeling even flows over when they use it to describe a third party.

(I happen to be in love with the Brazilian sense of life.)

After years of living in Brazil, schadenfreude isn't in my subconscious habits, and anyway, it just isn't as colorful to my subconscious as pepper hitting somone's asshole. So that's what I end up thinking underneath when I dwell on this subject...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

In English, I ofter read and hear people use schadenfreude in strong condemnatory tones. The emotion transmitted is disgust at the person feeling this. In Brazil, when I have heard one person say the spicy food expression to another, it is often criticizing the person's behavior as a playful jab in the ribs or as an alert, both meaning, "Stop being so callous." That feeling even flows over when they use it to describe a third party.

(I happen to be in love with the Brazilian sense of life.)

After years of living in Brazil, schadenfreude isn't in my subconscious habits, and anyway, it just isn't as colorful to my subconscious as pepper hitting somone's asshole. So that's what I end up thinking underneath when I dwell on this subject...

Michael

Schadenfreude is my second favorite hobby. There nothing quite as invigorating as dancing on the grave of one's enemy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Here's a hillbilly saying I grew up with:

That's your tale, I sit on mine.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

The root of most of this is dominance and submission as social emotions. I think when people criticize Rand for a whole host of things what they are really trying to get at but don't is that either they don't like her philosophy or they don't like the way she set up her movement. She was willing to wear a little bit of a black hat to advance her agenda, but I think she was honest about it. In her world you were either in or you were out. If you were in, she expected loyalty. That's not a bargain I would have made, but people who did did it with their eyes open.

I agreed more with Barbara than Linz about her Rage speech, but that's not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is dominance and submission. Kelley identified the hierarchical nature of the Objectivist movement in Truth and Toleration. The complete lack of status-seeking at the beginning of IOS/TOC/TAS is what I liked.

The renewed legacy building is what I didn't sign up for. That should have died with Rand on both sides.

In any case, I think Antonio Damasio sums it up well in his book, Looking for Spinoza (page 163 paperback edition):

And there is some more natural darkness to contend with. The trait of dominance- like its complement, submission- is an important component of social emotions. Dominance has a positive face in that dominant creatures tend to provide solutions for the problems of a community. They conduct negotiations and lead the wars.They find a path to salvation along the roads that lead to water, fruit and shelter or along the roads that lead to prophecy and wisdom. But those dominant individuals also can become abusive bullies, tyrants and despots when dominance goes hand in hand with its evil twin: charisma. They can conduct negotiations wrongly and lead others to the wrong war. In those creatures, the display of nice emotions is reserved for an exceedingly small group of themselves and those who sustain them most closely. Likewise, the submissive traits that can play such helpful roles in reaching agreement and concensus around a conflict can make individuals cower under the face of tyranny and hasten the downfall of an entire group under the sheer overuse of obeisance.

The struggle seems to be about how major players in the Objectivist movement are portrayed along the axis of social emotions. But that isn't really a struggle about philosophy. It's important to understand social emotions, but I don't think Rand's system is a very good tool for doing that.

Jim

[Jonathan]

The root of most of this is dominance and submission as social emotions. I think when people criticize Rand for a whole host of things what they are really trying to get at but don't is that either they don't like her philosophy or they don't like the way she set up her movement.

I disagree. I think that a lot of people who criticize Rand don't dislike her or her philosophy, but they're simply willing to recognize that her philosophy contains errors, that some of her ideas and actions were a bit loopy, and that she was sometimes hypocritical. Their willingness to recognize that Rand was sometimes wrong can be very upsetting to many of her fans.

The fundamental issue is dominance and submission.

From my perspective, the bullying in the Objectivist movement largely boils down to the fact that Objectivism has now been around long enough for a lot of people to look at it in great detail, and to recognize that it contains errors, inconsistencies, contradictions, vaguely defined terms and downright falsehoods. In my experience, the bullying usually starts when people dare to apply the alleged Objectivist virtue of reason and independent thinking to Objectivism -- when certain Objectivists can't answer criticism of Objectivism, they very quickly resort to calling those who are willing to investigate Rand's errors "Rand-diminishers," "enemies of Objectivism," etc.

Prior to discovering online Objectivist groups about a decade ago, I would have thought that Objectivists would have loved the opportunity to debate critics of Objectivism anytime anywhere, especially substantive criticism. It turns out that I was wrong. Objectivists seem to fear going out and defending Objectivism against informed criticism, especially in forums that they don't control, and in which they can't ban critics. Instead, most Objectivists generally seem to remain huddled in insular little cliques, and they seem to hope that name-calling and other verbal abuse will keep their fellow acolytes loyal to Objectivism, and discourage them from considering what the critics of Objectivism have to say. All of this gives the very strong impression that Objectivists, including the more prominent "intellectual heirs" and official promoters, can't answer the critics.

So, contrary to Jim's view that it's primarily an issue of personality conflicts, I think that it's mostly an issue of people engaging in abusive behavior as an attempted distraction from their lack of philosophical substance.

J

[Brant Gaede]

In English, I ofter read and hear people use schadenfreude in strong condemnatory tones. The emotion transmitted is disgust at the person feeling this. In Brazil, when I have heard one person say the spicy food expression to another, it is often criticizing the person's behavior as a playful jab in the ribs or as an alert, both meaning, "Stop being so callous." That feeling even flows over when they use it to describe a third party.

(I happen to be in love with the Brazilian sense of life.)

After years of living in Brazil, schadenfreude isn't in my subconscious habits, and anyway, it just isn't as colorful to my subconscious as pepper hitting somone's asshole. So that's what I end up thinking underneath when I dwell on this subject...

Michael

Schadenfreude is my second favorite hobby. There nothing quite as invigorating as dancing on the grave of one's enemy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I hope this isn't entirely metaphorical--that you are getting some exercise.

Did you move to be close to his grave. Save money on the commute?

Don't do this after dark.

You might trip, hit your head on his headstone and die.

--Brant

Edited June 21, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[James Heaps-Nelson]

The root of most of this is dominance and submission as social emotions. I think when people criticize Rand for a whole host of things what they are really trying to get at but don't is that either they don't like her philosophy or they don't like the way she set up her movement.

I disagree. I think that a lot of people who criticize Rand don't dislike her or her philosophy, but they're simply willing to recognize that her philosophy contains errors, that some of her ideas and actions were a bit loopy, and that she was sometimes hypocritical. Their willingness to recognize that Rand was sometimes wrong can be very upsetting to many of her fans.

The fundamental issue is dominance and submission.

From my perspective, the bullying in the Objectivist movement largely boils down to the fact that Objectivism has now been around long enough for a lot of people to look at it in great detail, and to recognize that it contains errors, inconsistencies, contradictions, vaguely defined terms and downright falsehoods. In my experience, the bullying usually starts when people dare to apply the alleged Objectivist virtue of reason and independent thinking to Objectivism -- when certain Objectivists can't answer criticism of Objectivism, they very quickly resort to calling those who are willing to investigate Rand's errors "Rand-diminishers," "enemies of Objectivism," etc.

Prior to discovering online Objectivist groups about a decade ago, I would have thought that Objectivists would have loved the opportunity to debate critics of Objectivism anytime anywhere, especially substantive criticism. It turns out that I was wrong. Objectivists seem to fear going out and defending Objectivism against informed criticism, especially in forums that they don't control, and in which they can't ban critics. Instead, most Objectivists generally seem to remain huddled in insular little cliques, and they seem to hope that name-calling and other verbal abuse will keep their fellow acolytes loyal to Objectivism, and discourage them from considering what the critics of Objectivism have to say. All of this gives the very strong impression that Objectivists, including the more prominent "intellectual heirs" and official promoters, can't answer the critics.

So, contrary to Jim's view that it's primarily an issue of personality conflicts, I think that it's mostly an issue of people engaging in abusive behavior as an attempted distraction from their lack of philosophical substance.

J

Jonathan,

I think you've made several blanket statements.

I'll try to address them point by point:

I run into Objectivists in forums they don't control all of the time. You can find Objectivists in free-wheeling Usenet newgroups, they host blogs and are prevalent on livejournal and facebook. Since 1994, I've seen all manner of forums come and go.

Which philosophers do you prefer to Rand and why? I like Searle, Nozick and a few others. My thrust is more applied neuroscience, but as philosophies go, I think Objectivism has done a good job of hitting the major topics. I'm always interested in substantive criticism, when it hits topics of my interest and sometimes even when it doesn't.

My complaints are not with the substance of Objectivism, but with the trajectory. Where is the major new work? In fertile areas like neuroscience and complex systems, the Objectivist perspective might have some important things to add.

Of the Objectivists I knew in college, none except me have joined an Objectivist group. I would say most take the nonObjectivist world on its own terms and are not very cliquish. You will find cliquish Objectivists in groups because groups sometimes give rise to cliques.

I think there are also many (most?) Objectivists who are simply too busy for online forums or find them off-putting.

Have you given conferences a try? The open side is having one in Vegas that I regrettably can't attend, but I generally have a blast at conferences.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dayaamm!

Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo unbanned me on SLOP (see here).

Just in case anyone is wondering, would I ever post there again?

Fuck no!

Can he or Valliant post here on OL?

Fuck no!

Not without some serious apologies to several people, and even then I would be hard pressed to believe them.

One Pross on my forum was enough.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

As I recall Valliant after a few posts asked you to strike him from the members list. Might have been the winter of 2006.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

You are correct. He was uncomfortable with the posting guidelines when he discovered I meant it. He asked to have his account removed and I complied.

Neither he nor Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo are banned here. But I don't want them here. They represent everything I despise in the Objectivist movement.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I think you've made several blanket statements.

I'll try to address them point by point:

I run into Objectivists in forums they don't control all of the time. You can find Objectivists in free-wheeling Usenet newgroups, they host blogs and are prevalent on livejournal and facebook. Since 1994, I've seen all manner of forums come and go.

That really doesn't address my point. Can you give me examples of where Objectivists, especially prominent orthodox Objectivists, have left the forums or venues that they control (or that other Objectivists control) and addressed informed criticism of Objectivism? I've only seen low- and mid-level players do so, and only on very rare occasions, and each time they got their asses kicked in debate to the point of embarrassment and never returned. A good example is the ARCHN blog. From what I've read of the blog, and related blogs, many of the criticisms of Objectivism remain unanswered. Occasionally you'll see an Objectivist brave enough to enter into the fray there, but even when they do, they're very rarely able to offer much of a coherent defense. Another example is that James Valliant once posted a lame (and lawyerly-spin) defense of Objectivism on the Richard Dawkins site but did very poorly. As usual, he did more damage to his cause than good.

Which philosophers do you prefer to Rand and why? I like Searle, Nozick and a few others. My thrust is more applied neuroscience, but as philosophies go, I think Objectivism has done a good job of hitting the major topics. I'm always interested in substantive criticism, when it hits topics of my interest and sometimes even when it doesn't.

It's not an issue of preferring anyone to Rand, but of hoping that people in the Objectivist movement will be more open to recognizing Rand's errors and to correcting them, just as they're open to recognizing other philosophers' errors. To me, it's not an issue of who's your favorite, but of what's the truth.

My complaints are not with the substance of Objectivism, but with the trajectory. Where is the major new work? In fertile areas like neuroscience and complex systems, the Objectivist perspective might have some important things to add.

I agree. I think that Objectivism could add to my areas of interest as well, but first it would have to correct its own obvious errors and contradictions, and it would have to separate Rand's subjective tastes (as well as those of her followers) from the technical philosophy. New work from an Objectivist perspective isn't going to happen when Objectivists fear addressing Rand's errors and when they vilify those who are eager to correct them.

Of the Objectivists I knew in college, none except me have joined an Objectivist group. I would say most take the nonObjectivist world on its own terms and are not very cliquish. You will find cliquish Objectivists in groups because groups sometimes give rise to cliques.

My point wasn't that all Objectivists are assholes and members of cliques, but that those who are assholes and members of cliques seem to be motivated to abuse others because they lack the ability to defend their (and Rand's) views against intelligent, informed criticism, and they refuse to correct their views when they can't support them and are obviously in error.

J

Edited June 22, 2009 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Brant,

You are correct. He was uncomfortable with the posting guidelines when he discovered I meant it. He asked to have his account removed and I complied.

Here's a post of Valliant's from here on OL in response to questions I had asked about PARC. It turned out that Valliant was being rather lawyerly with the truth in that post, and that Rand's journal entries do not address the issues that I asked about.

Neither he nor Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo are banned here. But I don't want them here. They represent everything I despise in the Objectivist movement.

I don't think that you'd have to worry about Pigero showing up here. He's the type of Objectivist that I've been talking about with Heaps-Nelson on this thread. He's full of bluff and bluster on his own territory where he can ban or cut off dissent, but he wouldn't dare step out into the real world and defend his views on neutral or foreign territory against informed criticism. I think that Pigero is primarily about image, and getting his ass kicked in debate on ground where he can't arbitrarily ban an opponent wouldn't be good for his image.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I noticed that my unbanning on SLOP had the oddest repercussion on that thread. It came from Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle. ("Sewer" is me in the following literature.)

If "Sewer" takes up the challenge...

Submitted by Ellen Stuttle on Sun, 2009-06-21 10:46.

...I hope the battles will be continued on a different thread.

The prospect seems to have left her without much enthusiasm as she ended:

Thus I'm going to bow out here. However, whatever use this thread might have for the Wikipedia editors who have been reading it will become buried if the thread now becomes fully dominated by battles amongst those who are fighting previous wars.

The Grande Dame of St. Referee need not fear. I shall not invade her stage.

But I do want to make a public prediction that I have made privately. I believe the Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle will end up embracing PARC—but with a few restrictions just to save face. I am not the only one who has seen the tide that comes and goes as she drifts closer and closer to Valliant. People are perplexed, but I am not perplexed.

Interestingly enough, to me Ayn Rand presented the best reason for this about-face. It is in The Fountainhead:

(pp. 468-469)

Ike flung his script at the fireplace. It struck against the wire screen and landed, face down, open, the thin pages crushed.

"If Ibsen can write plays, why can't I?" he asked. "He's good and I'm lousy, but that's not a sufficient reason."

"Not in the cosmic sense," said Lancelot Clokey. "Still, you're lousy."

"You don't have to say it. I said so first."

"This is a great play," said a voice.

The voice was slow, nasal and bored. It had spoken for the first time that evening, and they all turned to Ellen Jules Fougler. A cartoonist had once drawn a famous picture of him; it consisted of two sagging circles, a large one and a small one: the large one was his stomach, the small one—his lower lip. He wore a suit, beautifully tailored, of a color to which he referred as "merde d'oie." He kept his gloves on at all times and he carried a cane. He was an eminent drama critic.

Ellen Jules Fougler stretched out his cane, caught the playscript with the hook of the handle and dragged it across the floor to his feet.

He did not pick it up, but he repeated, looking down at it:

"This is a great play."

"Why?" asked Lancelot Clokey.

"Because I say so," said Ellen Jules Fougler.

"Is that a gag, Jules?" asked Lois Cook.

"I never gag," said Ellen Jules Fougler. "It is vulgar."

. . .

(p. 469)

"Ike has stated his reasons," Ellen Fougler continued. "And mine. And also yours, Lance. Examine my case, if you wish. What achievement is there for a critic in praising a good play? None whatever. The critic is then nothing but a kind of glorified messenger boy between author and public. What's there in that for me? I'm sick of it. I have a right to wish to impress my own personality upon people. Otherwise, I shall become frustrated—and I do not believe in frustration. But if a critic is able to put over a perfectly worthless play—ah, you do perceive the difference! Therefore, I shall make a hit out of—what's the name of your play, Ike?"

"No skin off your ass," said Ike.

"I beg your pardon?"

"That's the title."

"Oh, I see. Therefore, I shall make a hit out of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics No Skin Off Your Ass."

Of course, nobody can make a hit out of PARC, but that wouldn't stop someone vain from trying to bestow academic respectability to that book just to prove she had the intellectual standing and prestige to do so.

I would love to be wrong about this. I don't believe I am.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

But I do want to make a public prediction that I have made privately. I believe the Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle will end up embracing PARC—but with a few restrictions just to save face. I am not the only one who has seen the tide that comes and goes as she drifts closer and closer to Valliant. People are perplexed, but I am not perplexed.

Wikipedia has a policy called Assume Good Faith. Is there a tenet of Objectivism requires one to assume bad faith? Or is this just a hope, or a psychic prediction for the new year? Simple decency alone suggests that one keep such predictions to one's self. Objectivism does not sanction gossip and public slander, no matter what example certain Objectivists may have set.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Objectivism does not sanction gossip and public slander, no matter what example certain Objectivists may have set.

Ted,

You know nothing of this affair and you certainly do not speak for some entity called "Objectivism" that goes around sanctioning this and that.

I reject that stuff as tribalism.

EDIT: When I see posts like yours, pompously telling others what they should of should not do in the name of what Objectvism sanctions, I sincerely believe you strongly hold to "turning the other cheek" as a tenet—so long as it is not your cheek.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I think you've made several blanket statements.

I'll try to address them point by point:

I run into Objectivists in forums they don't control all of the time. You can find Objectivists in free-wheeling Usenet newgroups, they host blogs and are prevalent on livejournal and facebook. Since 1994, I've seen all manner of forums come and go.

That really doesn't address my point. Can you give me examples of where Objectivists, especially prominent orthodox Objectivists, have left the forums or venues that they control (or that other Objectivists control) and addressed informed criticism of Objectivism? I've only seen low- and mid-level players do so, and only on very rare occasions, and each time they got their asses kicked in debate to the point of embarrassment and never returned. A good example is the ARCHN blog. From what I've read of the blog, and related blogs, many of the criticisms of Objectivism remain unanswered. Occasionally you'll see an Objectivist brave enough to enter into the fray there, but even when they do, they're very rarely able to offer much of a coherent defense. Another example is that James Valliant once posted a lame (and lawyerly-spin) defense of Objectivism on the Richard Dawkins site but did very poorly. As usual, he did more damage to his cause than good.

Which philosophers do you prefer to Rand and why? I like Searle, Nozick and a few others. My thrust is more applied neuroscience, but as philosophies go, I think Objectivism has done a good job of hitting the major topics. I'm always interested in substantive criticism, when it hits topics of my interest and sometimes even when it doesn't.

It's not an issue of preferring anyone to Rand, but of hoping that people in the Objectivist movement will be more open to recognizing Rand's errors and to correcting them, just as they're open to recognizing other philosophers' errors. To me, it's not an issue of who's your favorite, but of what's the truth.

My complaints are not with the substance of Objectivism, but with the trajectory. Where is the major new work? In fertile areas like neuroscience and complex systems, the Objectivist perspective might have some important things to add.

I agree. I think that Objectivism could add to my areas of interest as well, but first it would have to correct its own obvious errors and contradictions, and it would have to separate Rand's subjective tastes (as well as those of her followers) from the technical philosophy. New work from an Objectivist perspective isn't going to happen when Objectivists fear addressing Rand's errors and when they vilify those who are eager to correct them.

Of the Objectivists I knew in college, none except me have joined an Objectivist group. I would say most take the nonObjectivist world on its own terms and are not very cliquish. You will find cliquish Objectivists in groups because groups sometimes give rise to cliques.

My point wasn't that all Objectivists are assholes and members of cliques, but that those who are assholes and members of cliques seem to be motivated to abuse others because they lack the ability to defend their (and Rand's) views against intelligent, informed criticism, and they refuse to correct their views when they can't support them and are obviously in error.

J

Jonathan,

I think you have a point, but you overstate your case. I can think of at least two examples off the top of my head: Onkar Ghate with Michael Huemer and James Lennox with a variety of philosophers of science.

I think ARI simply believes they don't have to engage most critics. They think that they can outsell their critics and drown them out. In many cases they are right.

The cases where they are wrong are where people have something important to say about psychology, science or neuroscience. Objectivism is way behind the curve on these topics and unlikely to catch up. The problem is the same that lots of other philosophies have vis-a-vis Objectivism. In order to enter a debate or offer substantial criticism, you have to have a significant positive platform for it to carry any weight. Objectivism as it stands does not have much to offer in these areas and much of what it does have is underdeveloped or wrong.

The reason Objectivists will get their butts kicked on Dawkins is that very few are broadly educated in biology or understand evolution very well. Likewise Dawkins would get his butt kicked with an Objectivist when talking about political theory or other topics.

What you are asking for is a bigger project than you realize. Many brilliant Objectivists, Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, Leonard Peikoff, Yaron Brook and David Kelley included are/were simply poorly educated in many areas of math and science. The only solution I can think of is to ask outside experts to address Objectivist audiences in their fields of study.

Most of the upcoming major contributions to psychology and the humanities will be made by scientists. The reason for this is that we have hit a limit in what can be said without a significant, comprehensive study of biology and complexity theory and a distillation of what that uncovers in terms of implications for other fields of study.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I didn't expect it so soon, but here is the crack through which the Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle will embrace PARC:

I'll repeat something Joan Kennedy Taylor said about her attitude post-The Split, when Nathaniel Branden was being condemned by many Objectivists as though he were the Devil. (I'm quoting from memory; the quote is in Walker; I haven't time to look it up, have to get to bed.):

"If a pickpocket is being condemned for murder, I'll defend the pickpocket."

That was pretty much my viewpoint too.

From here it's just a hop and a skip to saying Valliant was right in PARC, but [fill in the blank with some crap to make it look good]. Then argue it to death.

The premise has been prepared.

I watch this crap with great sadness and disgust because I once used to respect Stuttle. I don't respect vanity. There is another point, this is for the Grande Dame herself (her quote is from the same post):

Furthermore, MSK also failed to understand the Wikipedia meaning of "reliable." When he posted the segment of Wikipedia Talk which Barbara then copied and sent to several recipients as an email (forgetting to say where she'd gotten it), he posted that segment in glee, as if it meant something it didn't mean.

I didn't fail to understand anything of the kind. I dare Stuttle to produce a quote showing I misunderstood this in the manner she is claiming. She has no monopoly on understanding Wikipedia guidelines, although she is acting like she does have one.

And if there is something I do not feel about this whole affair, it is glee. I am actually surprised that my intentions and feelings are not groked better by otherwise intelligent people, since I say them over and over. I'll chalk this crap up this time to heat of the moment.

But for the record once more, my intention is to stand up to bullies. It is to discredit them. I do not do that with glee nor with misrepresentation. In fact, I am irritated by the need to do it at all. And I am doing fine all by myself with facts and one small website.

I find this state of affairs in the Objectivist subcommunity sad and revolting, but I am sick to death of the malice-mongers and I am sick to death of people granting unearned and undue credibility to malice mongers. All in the name of Ayn Rand and heroism and truth and justice and all kinds of horseshit. (These things are not horseshit, but coming out of their mouths when compared to their acts, it certainly is.)

So I am hitting them back as hard as they hit others. Actually, I am surprised that one small website has been so effective. That, to me, shows the power of truth when someone actually stands up to bullies with facts and pulls the covers off their lies.

If it hurts, good. Maybe they'll stop some of the irrational viciousness and we can get on with living and learning and producing.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I wouldn't equate Ellen Stuttle with Jules Fougler, who was portrayed as a manipulative phony of the worst kind.

But she is making excuses for Jim Valliant, and sucking up to Lindsay Perigo.

As she is almost certainly smarter than either of them, she has to know what she is doing.

Robert Campbell