The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[psychoanaleesis]

First off, WTF is this Perigo babbling about?

Did you just complete a SLOP immersion course? How long did it take you to draw these conclusions about Perigo (who, BTW, I customarily refer to as Jabba)? My preliminary conclusion is that your gag reflex is working up to spec.

From your point 6 should I infer that you’re an agnostic or a deist?

No, I did not complete a SLOP immersion course, what is SLOP anyway? I read what he posted, analyzed his mentality, evaluated against my standards and drew my conclusions from there.

Point 6 is one of the great questions that I have. Like detecting invisible wavelengths of light, I have this notion of creating some sort a method or device to bring to focus any sort if phenomenon which creates. I know this is more in the area of higher physics in theories like the String theory or Theory of Everything but I do see the possibility of identifying exactly what is the nature and characteristics of this "God" - in short, break it down to concretes like any other concept. I can't say (although I did once with embarrassing consequences) that I am an agnostic since I think we can know "God", just not with what we currently have. As to being a deist, if I currently do not know that there is one, how could I know if he abandoned it?

[Selene]

Excellent David:

I studied at the Nathanial Branden Institute [NBI] when it started in NYC. I was quite young and I had just finished Atlas.

It just made sense to me. I have not looked back. However, having seen Ayn, "in the flesh," I could "see" certain aspects of her that made me continue to "check premises."

Thinking for yourself is like a chess game with life. It may not be a pain free dedication, but it is worth every second. I do not rule out a "grand architect of the universe" which puts the "there" in human perspective, for me.

The laws of nature work for me. Call it xyz - it is.

You will do fine. Stay the course.

Adam

[psychoanaleesis]

Thanks Adam. By the way, did you know that another way of saying "Stay on course" is to say, "Keep true"? That's something to ponder on.

[Selene]

Thanks Adam. By the way, did you know that another way of saying "Stay on course" is to say, "Keep true"? That's something to ponder on.

A true bearing. I have always been "compass mentis"!

Adam

[9thdoctor]

No, I did not complete a SLOP immersion course, what is SLOP anyway? I read what he posted, analyzed his mentality, evaluated against my standards and drew my conclusions from there.

See MSK’s post above, the first on the thread (top of the page). “Slop” is of course pig swill, something you don’t want to get immersed in. I was complimenting you on coming to such perceptive conclusions about SOLOP/SLOP, especially it’s proprietor. Ref the part about defense vomiting and the gag reflex.

I do see the possibility of identifying exactly what is the nature and characteristics of this "God" - in short, break it down to concretes like any other concept.

Sounds Hawkingesque.

[psychoanaleesis]

Doc:

Well, in that case, I have been immersed in it - for at least 14 years!

Can you imagine the constant feeling of disgust that comes when everywhere you look you know that there is something wrong and rotten about in your surrounding? In people? In their actions and thoughts that it becomes their core? However you didn't have the proper way of defining that rottenness? It was like this story of a man who was awakened and found everybody else still sleeping? But this story is different because you know all of you were sleeping on muck with everyone sinking slowly at their own pace and you just happened to be somehow buoyant. The twisted part is this: you try to wake everyone that was close to you and in little increments they do... just to slap your hand and say, "go away!" That's when I found out that it was useless for me to try even more to convince them and just focus on how to save just yourself. Then you meet persons who throw you a lifeline and realizing that there is a way to get out of this state without using other people's bodies to use as a means, you get instead this strong rope called objectivism-reason, newly "manufactured" by Rand, coined by Aristotle and those persons who gave this to you are men of competence and you are one of them. You know this lifeline is true and it can never betray you not because of "faith" in it but because it is its main characteristic. It can answer anything, leaves no mystery untouched, everything is knowable and doable, that you just had to utilize what you have to the best that you can.

Heh. I felt that passionately about it eh? Good. I know why and how how I came to feel this way. So when I read this Perigo guy selling the muck that I loathe, my disgust made me vomit some of that garbage I swallowed back then... but more to purge!

On God: Do I sound like Hawking? Thanks. I've always been interested and understood physics (in my class I got the compliment of my professor that while I am good at it, I still had a mountain yet to get over.) I've yet to finish reading his take on the universe on a "Brief History of Time". I cannot and will not pretend to have a vision of being the one who solves this God problem since my mental capacity is unlike men of his capability... I just long to see the day when it gets solved and applied by every science, with each its own take but assent to the same principle/law.

P.S.

I noticed I had a lot of typo in my last posts, but as you can see the timestamps. I hadn't slept very well this past few days. Thanks!

Edited February 27, 2010 by David Lee

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm going to go out on a limb a little bit about James Valliant in light of one of the things life has taught me and what he is presently doing.

The thing is this: Generally, a person will object loud and long to something in others when it is in his own heart. I'm not talking about judging evil people as evil, etc. You do what you gotta do in that case, but then you get on with living. I'm talking about fixating on something in others to the point where it becomes ridiculous.

For example, one of my exes was insanely jealous of me and made my life living hell by accusing me of all kinds of things I did not do. She later slept around on me for real and only told me years after we had broken up.

We all know about the guy who claims he is honest and gets really mad when someone asks for verification of something he said. Scratch it a bit and you will almost always find the lie he is trying to hide.

Who hasn't seen the following? XXXX keeps harping on and on about what a scumbag YYYY is because YYYY didn't pay someone correctly. Later we discover that XXXX was hiding from his own bill collectors all along.

The list goes on and on. Sometimes it is called "protesting too much."

I see Valliant protesting too much. He's over on SLOP right now making a huge issue about Perigo calling ARI's airbrushing of history policies "Stalinist." See here and here, for instance, but there are more examples on that thread. Valliant fell out bad with Perigo over this, sayig that no one at ARI is a mass murderer, claiming he needs to take a bath, yada yada yada. And he keeps going on and on about it.

And I'm sitting here blinking and thinking about something slinking and stinking... This dude used to be a prosecutor for the government. Hmmmm... Some day it might be interesting to take a look at what he did over there in San Diego.

I know that I would not want to be anywhere near if Valliant ever got some serious power in his hands. Blowing up over the Stalin thing like he is doing right now is just too creepy for what I have lived.

"You get used to it. My first execution was the hardest. I felt guilty for weeks, but I finally got over it..." -- That's the little voice in my head talking, saying that this is in the heart of James Valliant and would be something he would be capable of if he ever got real power. Let's say I believe he is a spiritual murderer. I seriously believe that.

I've seen these kinds of people all my life and I see the same signs in him as I have seen in them. It's a "destroy others" thing. They live to destroy targeted people and they have a really thin skin about jokes or hyperbole mentioning other destroyers of human beings, physical or otherwise.

Valliant's entire profile--judging especially from his writings--fits that to a tee. (He now even wants to "destroy" Jesus Christ.) Of course he's not a real murderer. But he doesn't have--and will never have--real power, either...

It's good to keep it that way...

The idea of this dude as someone's enforcer, with power over life and death, creeps me out...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

David,

You have my sympathies.

I have a personal feud with Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo, but you see clearly (more clearly than others, in fact) why I don't patch that feud up. I want distance from that kind of bullying soul who seeks to stifle the best in people by trying to intimidate them into doing the following: (1) Give up their own thinking, and (2) Follow him instead.

Everything I hate about people who push you and demand you turn off your own mind I also hate in the demeanor of that person.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

On God: Do I sound like Hawking? Thanks.

He ended Brief History of Time with a line about science knowing the mind of god. Someday. It was ambiguous enough to be taken metaphorically or literally depending on the reader.

this is in the heart of James Valliant and would be something he would be capable of if he ever got real power. Let's say I believe he is a spiritual murderer. I seriously believe that.

Talk about reifying the zero! But this is for the author “Soul of a Rapist”, so he deserves whatever you throw at him.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

Now... did I do that?

Dayaamm!

I meant "soul of a murderer" and plum forgot the original term...

Michael

[psychoanaleesis]

Michael:

I can't hate this creature enough to mind him further. Instead, I have a constant feeling of disgust towards philosophies of this kind. I like what Roark said about this because it's liberating: "I’m not capable of suffering completely. I never have. It goes only down to a certain point and then it stops. As long as there is that untouched point, it’s not really pain." and "But I don't think of you."

I shall never give up my mind. I'll stand up for what I think is right, whether I'm correct or mistaken. Take responsibility for it, review my premises and make it better. I'd rather be this than have to take another man's word for it whether it be the Pope,Hitler or Rand. Where they could still be wrong or right but I'll be dragged down with them if it's the former and I'd feel and deserve no achievement if it's the latter.

*Revised

Edited February 27, 2010 by David Lee

[Selene]

David:

Where he could still be wrong or right but I'll be dragged down with him if it's the former and I'd feel and deserve no achievement if it's the latter.

Well put. Bravo!

Adam

[psychoanaleesis]

David:

Where he could still be wrong or right but I'll be dragged down with him if it's the former and I'd feel and deserve no achievement if it's the latter.

Well put. Bravo!

Adam

Thank you! Thank you! After almost two decades of battling with hordes of their kind, I'm used to taking their heads apart (metaphor!)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since this is a thread on tribalist mentality, there are a couple of things to notice in the current meltdown between Perigo and Valliant. You can start around here or so and scroll up or down to see it in action.

1. Scapegoating. This is so deeply ingrained in Perigo's psyche (judging from what he says and does) that he automatically presents a scapegoat as the solution to difficult problems, like the current disagreement with Valliant. (This is not so difficult from those looking at it from the outside, but from inside his own head, I imagine his sense of betrayal is going into overdrive.) So now, in Perigo's current denunciations, the ULTIMATE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL at ARI is Harry Binswanger and the attitude of snootiness or obnoxiousness Binswanger promotes. Perigo is essentially trying to present a scapegoat to Valliant that Valliant can find more palatable than, say, Peikoff.

2. Sanctity of the Enlightened Chosen Ones. This is so deeply ingrained in Valliant's psyche (judging from what he says and does) that he automatically presents a rationalization for any and all acts of intimidation or cult-like behavior presented by core ARI members who were in Rand's Inner Circle while she was alive. Perigo is not going to make his case for Binswanger to Valliant because Binswanger is one of the Enlightened Chosen Ones. Should that status ever change, say by Peikoff excommunicating Binswanger like he did Tracinski, I imagine Perigo would have a chance at his Binswanger scapegoating.

Perigo's do-no-wrong on fundamentals Sacred Honor attitude means Ayn Rand and himself. Valliant's do-no-wrong on fundamentals Sacred Honor attitude means Ayn Rand and the Enlightened Chosen Ones, especially, but not limited to, Peikoff.

Perigo is a leader. Valliant is a follower. Both are essentially cultists. Not as bad as Jim Jones stuff, but well on the way. They both exhibit enough of the essential characteristics of cultism to categorize them as such.

(For example, on the following checklist of Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups, I can attribute 8 of the 15 to them. That's over half. I suggest that you, the reader, if you are interested in recognizing this mentality, go through that list and make your own evaluations. It's not all-inclusive, though. For example, it leaves out scapegoating. But it is very eye-opening. There are other such lists and information online. I found this one Googling the following phrase: essential characteristics of cultism. If you do that, you will find some really good stuff in addition to this.)

So long as the scapegoat is a Branden or, say Robert Campbell, all is well between the two. They have common ground and will tolerate their mutual shortcomings.

But the LINE OF NO RETURN must never be crossed.

That line on Perigo's side is that his honesty must never be questioned. Ever. (Nor his drinking.) The line on Valliant's side is that the honesty of ARI old-timer insiders must never be questioned. Both agree on Rand's Sacred Honesty and both hold that this was never breached in her entire lifetime, so that is not an issue between them.

Now the unthinkable has happened to them. Both have crossed the damnation line in the exchange on that thread. I doubt there will be any patching this up. The only way to do that is to admit the other was right to cross the uncrossable line. And it must never, ever, under any circumstances barring mental illness (or being drunk), not once be crossed.

There is a nuance that should be mentioned. Perigo did question the honesty of Peikoff once with his "fatwa" voting thing, and Valliant still hung around. But Perigo couched it as an abuse of power, not dishonesty, and Diana Hsieh was the one who stood up for Peikoff back then. This allowed Valliant some breathing room to see if the exposure PARC was getting on SOLOP would expand. Valliant could stand back and pretend the issue was not with him or his loyalties since Hsieh and her minions were speaking for his view (and he could later win Perigo over). He was politically right to do that, too. For instance, Stuttle jumped on the PARC bandwagon. So that was a gain.

But now the issue is with him and there is no way to gloss it over in public. So the do-or-die moment has arrived. If it does not play out in a rupture right now, I predict that it will happen before too long. I have seen it time and time again with Perigo and ARI folks.

Notice that the dispute is over who the Honor of the Sacred One belongs to and who the scapegoat is. It is not over whether the Honor of the Sacred One or scapegoating is bullshit or not.

There will be Sacred Honor and there will be scapegoats. Those are absolutes informing the moral compass of this mentality (instead of reality). They are the not-to-be-questioned fundamental axioms.

It is also interesting to note that if those fundamental axioms are accepted, independent thinking--up to a point--is tolerated and at times encouraged by both Perigo and Valliant.

That's enough on those dudes for this post. If there were no point to this, I would not be discussing it. But there is a point.

These two gentlemen are providing some excellent concrete referents for the concept of "Objectivist cult mentality" (or tribal mentality as opposed to individualist mentality) and how it operates on a fundamental level that goes beyond any one organization.

This is a mentality that I hold is an easy trap to fall into with Objectivism, but it is not an essential component of the philosophy. Rand poured an overdose of emotion on the "save the world" theme and her emotionally charged "call to join us" is where the trap lies. But much good can be obtained from Objectivism without a person turning into what those two gentlemen are.

So be careful. A person can turn into that without even realizing it if he is not diligent in identifying what he learns and observes.

I believe the only sacred thing, your highest value, should be your own use of your own mind to come to your own conclusions. Everything else comes after that.

Even if you belive in God, it is you who decides what to do about that in your life. Not God. Not this person or that. You.

All religions I know of claim that God operates through you only after you have decided to let Him in. They may claim that He influences or controls this or that (including stuff in your life and at times using you for His bigger stuff), but He does not decide to allow Him into your soul for you. Only you can do that. So even from a religious standpoint, independent thinking should be top value in relation to the stuff others tell you.

Granted, there is only one reality. That is the ultimate reference. If you do not put your own mind, your own independent thinking, as top value in relation to other people, you will never grasp any part of reality correctly except by accident.

Your perception of reality comes from your own perception and your own thinking about it. You can get ideas and other stuff to think about from other people, but a correct perception of reality does not come from blindly accepting the evaluations of them--especially those who preach that you should not question certain things about certain people or certain issues, and you should automatically hate who and what they hate.

In my world, it's OK and even good to use other people's views as a shortcut to gaining knowledge. Actually, that's the bedrock on how knowledge grows throughout humanity. But it's not OK to use other people as a replacement for your own thinking. Especially about fundamentals. It's always good to check anything you think needs checking. That means checking the validity of thinking of the people you get ideas from.

I hold this so deeply that I consider it it a value when people check what I say and see stuff for themselves. Even when we end up disagreeing and I still think I am right. And even when I am proven wrong.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Gee Michael, reading your previous is like watching one of those chefs who cooks your food right in front of you: slice, dice and fry.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The SOLOPIANS are ganging up on Valliant, a dreadful sight to see--but glorious.

--Brant

maybe a glorious sight but dreadful?

dreadful, hooray!?

a nice sight on a dreadull site?

Edited February 28, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[9thdoctor]

The SOLOPIANS are ganging up on Valliant, a dreadful sight to see--but glorious.

How many posts have there been in the last 24-48 hours? Like 5-10? Including the music gems of the day?

[Robert Campbell]

Ganging up basically means that Chris Cathcart has been going after Jim Valliant, and two participants who post whatever Lindsay Perigo tells them to post (Kasper Kulak and Sam Pierson) have chimed in.

In SOLOP's depopulated domain, this is the biggest gang that can be assembled.

I find it amusing that Chris Cathcart is now complaining about the non-citation of Nathaniel Branden by ARIan authors:

http://www.solopassi...5#comment-85273

Whatever else one thinks of Branden as a person, there isn't an excuse to ignore his work.

This is the same guy who, back in 2006, swore that expecting writers on Objectivism to cite Nathaniel Branden where his work is relevant (e.g., on the subject of self-esteem) was no different from expecting them to suck his cock.

Of course, Mr. Cathcart still bows before the sacred eminence of Leonard Peikoff. But like Lindsay Perigo, he wants to exclude Harry Binswanger and Peter Schwartz from sacred eminence status.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The breakdown between Messrs. Valliant and Perigo continues, over yonder.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7405#comment-85284

It has finally occurred to Ms. Stuttle—siding, when push comes to shove, with Perigo rather than Valliant—to try to drive a wedge between Mr. Valliant's loyalty to Leonard Peikoff and his loyalty to the other éminences grises of ARI.

Will the clash between their self-images overcome their shared delight in smarm and sleaze and their shared hatred of Barbara Branden?

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Actually, there is a glimmer of truth in Perigo's and Stuttle's comment about Valliant's time-travel. "Time-travel" is the phrase I used for this rhetorical device when I first detected it in Valliant's style, and I kinda like the term. Valliant often treats the conditions/contexts of the past as if they were the same as the present, and vice-versa, when criticizing someone or responding to criticism.

A typical example is something like the following. This actually exists in PARC and I could look it up right now, but I don't want to bother, so consider it as a hypothetical example if need be. In The Passion of Ayn Rand, Barbara discussed Rand's bitterness at the end of her life. In another part of the book, Barbara also mentioned seeing Rand's joy and dancing at hearing tiddley-wink music. Valliant then went on and on about how Barbara contradicted herself and totally ignored the fact that she was talking about different time periods decades apart. PARC is full of that kind of time-travel.

Here are the quotes from Perigo and Stuttle. Perigo first:

You talk as though we're debating the ARI as it is. We're not. We're debating the ARI as it was—and thankfully no longer is.

Now Stuttle:

Linz's description seems accurate to me -- as if you're trying to defend things which *did* occur under the auspices of ARI because they aren't occurring now.

Interestingly enough, Jennifer Burns noticed this rhetorical habit in Valliant's review of her book, but called it by a different name.

Yet for Valliant Rand is more than consistent, she is unchanging, even when her own writing indicates otherwise. Some of this may come from Valliant's focus on her published work, when most of my book looks at the spadework that went into Rand's publications. In these unpublished materials, I find marked differences in tone and temper – which are important to any discussion of Rand's ideas. But for Valliant, these differences are nothing more than "stylistic adjustment to differing venues for her thought."

Later in the same article, Jennifer attributed this to an epistemological malfunction by Valliant:

Here we are at an impasse about the meaning and significance of language. For Valliant, language does not precisely express concepts or meaning: if Rand changed the language she used, it was not because her ideas changed but because she simply expanded the repertoire of words she had at her disposal.

This is overly-generous on her part. I believe Valliant is selling what he knows to be propaganda (i.e., a lie) and uses time-travel rhetoric as a smokescreen.

Just like he was doing with Perigo in defending ARI.

It might appear to be a frozen abstraction, but it is actually conceptual time-travel smoke and mirrors meant to dazzle and befuddle and cover the propaganda.

(Well... I admit, "dazzle" is a bit of a stretch for Valliant's repetitive, plodding and mind-numbingly boring style. But, at least, I think he wants to dazzle...)

Whoever reads Valliant should be attentive to this kind of sleaze. If it were an error, it would not be sleaze, but it is on purpose, so it is sleaze. His writing, both in PARC and online, is shot through and through with it.

Michael

[anthony]

Robert,

Apropos of very little, and thankfully none of my business, but watching these events unfold like a slow motion car wreck, I wonder : do any of these protagonists, in their heart of hearts, wish that they could get out of the hole they've dug for themselves - and just go back to the point before they started faking it?

I haven't seen a lot of people on the forums come out and say "I was wrong." No one person can be right, all the time.

Sadly, most will defend their positions to the death.

Tony

[Jonathan]

The breakdown between Messrs. Valliant and Perigo continues, over yonder.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7405#comment-85284

It has finally occurred to Ms. Stuttle...

On that thread, Ellen wrote,

The point on which there's a direct contradiction between Hospers' and NB's accounts is on whether or not a riot act was read prior to the post-meeting party in the O'Connors' hotel suite.

Hospers writes:

When her colleague Nathaniel Branden and I had a walk in the hall immediately following this exchange, there was no hint of the excommunication to come. [When] I went to Ayn and her husband Frank's suite in the hotel [and] saw that I was being snubbed by everyone from Ayn on down [....] I had not so much as been informed in advance.

Nathaniel writes:

I was assigned to bring Hospers along [to the party at the hotel suite] in a separate car and in effect to read him the riot act. I went through the motions halfheartedly, feeling thoroughly miserable. (MYWAR version; the "halfheartedly" was added to the JD version.)

The only way the two accounts could be reconciled in part would be if NB "in effect" "read [Hospers] the riot act" *after* the gathering in the hotel suite.

Another way in which the accounts could be reconciled is that Branden's "halfhearted" attempts at going "through the motions" of "in effect" reading the riot act were indeed halfhearted, passionless and ineffective. It's possible that Hospers didn't recognize that he was kind of sort of being reluctantly scolded by Branden, especially if Hospers' account of Rand's having "lashed out savagely" is true. In comparison to the great anger that Hospers says he had just witnessed in Rand, Branden's halfhearted comments might have come across as quite mild, or perhaps even as friendly, forgettable chatter about the evening's events.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why Jonathan,

That's not plausible at all.

Not if you're gunning for a Branden, it's not...

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Speaking of Valliant, PARC hasn't been reviewed on Amazon for 8 months. So even with the new interest in Rand because of the biographies few people have decided to read his book.

Anne Heller's bio has 41 reviews, the same number as PARC.

-Neil Parille

[Neil Parille]

Speaking of the ARI, can anyone tell me what is so different in 2010 from 2000?

Just last year they produced Objectively Speaking edited by Peter Schwartz and, according to Burns, it has the same problems as the other stuff (Journals, Q&A, etc.).

They do seem a little bit more open (for example Burns getting access) but it strikes me that there is the same dogmatism.

-Neil Parille