The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Brant Gaede]

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

I promised Barbara a new Amazon review of PARC, but you did such a thorough demolition it would have only gilded the lily.

--Brant

Edited March 4, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

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

Far from being "another way" of reconciling the accounts, that's just an elaborately drawn out way of saying what Hospers said, that he had no hint of what was coming. A "riot act" so mild as to be completely missed would hardly classify as a "riot act."

Ellen

[Neil Parille]

I think NB's version of Hospers using "gentle sarcasm" is the most plausible; but none of the accounts (Hospers, BB, NB, HB) were written down or recorded until at least 20 years after the event.

Can anyone confirm the quote attributed to Harry Binswanger (in Walker's TARC I believe) that if he knew anything negative about Rand he wouldn't reveal it?

Until ARIans like Binswanger distance themselves from the jiggery-pokery practiced by Harriman, Mayhew and Peikoff I think a little skepticism is in order.

-Neil Parille

Edited March 4, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Perhaps both Nathaniel Branden and John Hospers should have consulted Stuttle about what the correct classification of "half-hearted" meant before giving their impressions of an event they both lived through. She would have instructed them as to what they could and could not do.

Since they did not, obviously only her interpretation of what they both lived through and reported from their own perspective can be the correct one. The fact that she wasn't present and they were, well, the reader can draw his/her own conclusions.

I happen to think her nitpicking to find fault with Nathaniel and suck up to Valliant instead of trying to understand the different perspectives is utter bullshit.

I also happen to find Joathan's view more than plausible. Knowing human beings as I know them, I am confident that it is what happened.

As I was growing up, I learned that different people often interpret different events in different manners. Even here on forums, for example, what one person posts as a compliment is sometimes seen by another as an insult. Same event. Different perspectives.

In Internet marketing, the copywirting part, they even have an area of study devoted to this: actual value versus perceived value.

Cialdini, for instance, has shown clearly how contrast tends to exaggerate perception and this fits Jonathan's idea perfectly. He illustrates this by putting three buckets of water in front of a person, one hot, one cold and the middle one room temperature. He has the person put one hand each in the outer ones (hot and cold) and hold them there. Then after they have become acclimated, he has them put both hands at the same time in the room temperature bucket. The person gets a surprise because one hand feels the water is warm and the other feels it is cold.

That's what contrast does. Jonathan placed Rand's fury against a "half-hearted" "riot act" by Nathaniel. So imagine that... The different accounts turned out according to how human beings work.

But damn them pesky human beings, anyway. Those suckers just won't obey a frozen world-view at all...

They think and perceive for themselves--and report it--without consulting the Stuttles or Valliants of the world about what they should think and perceive in the first place.

Imagine that!

What's the world coming to?

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Is Ms. Stuttle getting bored, hanging out where all of her critics are banned?

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

I happen to think [stuttle's] nitpicking to find fault with Nathaniel and suck up to Valliant instead of trying to understand the different perspectives is utter bullshit.

Were you to read carefully, you might notice that I was disagreeing with Valliant as to whether the "riot act" story was against or to NB's interests.

I also happen to find Joathan's view more than plausible. Knowing human beings as I know them, I am confident that it is what happened.

You're confident what happened? That NB read so gentle a riot act, Hospers completely failed to notice that a riot act was being read? Repeating, "that's just an elaborately drawn out way of saying what Hospers said, that he had no hint of what was coming."

-

Neil:

I think NB's version of Hospers using "gentle sarcasm" is the most plausible; but none of the accounts (Hospers, BB, NB, HB) were written down or recorded until at least 20 years after the event.

I think difference of perspectives does account for the differences among Harry's, NB's, and Hospers' accounts of what transpired at the meeting. (Barbara's account lacks particulars.) I believe Harry's rendition of the actual wording of one of Hospers' questions. Also his report of Hospers' behavior (looking at the wall). Re the difference between Harry and Hospers on the tone of Rand's response -- Hospers says she "lashed out savagely," Harry that she didn't (see for Harry's description) -- I think Harry's probably reporting correctly as to the quietude of her response, but that Hospers, knowing Rand well by then, could have picked up an underlying anger which Harry didn't register and thus (quoting Hospers) "could see that she thought I had betrayed her."

Ellen

[Jonathan]

A "riot act" so mild as to be completely missed would hardly classify as a "riot act."

Indeed. That's the point.

I just looked up "read the riot act" on an online dictionary, and this was the result:

"To warn or reprimand energetically or forcefully."

That sounds about right to me.

Branden says that he was assigned the task of reading Hospers the riot act, but that he did so halfheartedly, that he felt miserable, and that he was only going through the motions. So, can one "energetically or forcefully" reprimand someone by halfheartedly going through the motions, and while feeling miserable about it? Probably not. Halfheartedness is generally not very energetic or forceful. A halfhearted attempt at reading the riot act might indeed be so mild as to not be perceived as a reading of the riot act.

J

Edited March 4, 2010 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Were you to read carefully, you might notice that I was disagreeing with Valliant as to whether the "riot act" story was against or to NB's interests.

Stuttle,

I do read carefully. That's why I notice that you do not disagree with Valliant about Nathaniel being dishonest in his accounts.

You talk it up as "in his interest" to make it sound good, and that makes you sound somewhat impartial, but it translates easily to someone who reads carefully (like me) as competent dishonest manipulation versus incompetent dishonest manipulation.

I claim that Nathaniel wrote an honest account of what he honestly thinks happened in his life in both Judgment Day and My Years With Ayn Rand. That is where I disagree with both you and Valliant. But I don't hold the same view of either of you.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Branden says that he was assigned the task of reading Hospers the riot act, but that he did so halfheartedly, that he felt miserable, and that he was only going through the motions. So, can one "energetically or forcefully" reprimand someone by halfheartedly going through the motions, and while feeling miserable about it? Probably not. Halfheartedness is generally not very energetic or forceful. A halfhearted attempt at reading the riot act might indeed be so mild as to not be perceived as a reading of the riot act.

J

So then you accept Hospers' story as to his receiving no hint of what was coming?

I.e., you question -- as I was questioning to begin with -- Valliant's description (link): "We can certainly give [branden] the responsibility for the verbal lashing that Hospers got with [the AR/Hospers break]?"

I'm gathering, however, that you believe Branden's claim that he "was assigned the task of reading Hospers the riot act." Along with doubting that there indeed was a riot act read, I doubt that there was the assignment of such reading.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I claim that Nathaniel wrote an honest account of what he honestly thinks happened in his life in both Judgment Day and My Years With Ayn Rand. That is where I disagree with both you and Valliant. [....]

I think his account is partly honest and partly not. I've thought it was mixed since I first read it soon after Judgment Day was published.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I claim that Nathaniel wrote an honest account of what he honestly thinks happened in his life in both Judgment Day and My Years With Ayn Rand. That is where I disagree with both you and Valliant. [....]

I think his account is partly honest and partly not. I've thought it was mixed since I first read it soon after Judgment Day was published.

Ellen

Stuttle,

Your opinion is on record. And it is nothing more than that: your opinion.

Now please note this 2006 guideline (called "Basic Objectivist Living stuff") from the Corner Office at the top of the forum page:

For the detractors of the Brandens, please be advised that Objectivist Living is a haven for them. People can get a positive image of them here. They can learn about the Brandens and learn from them. The Brandens were fundamental to the creation of Objectivism and we feel lucky to be able to interact with them. Disagreements with them on specific issues are OK, but Branden bashing is not tolerated. Instead, we wish to honor them.

I will not have James Valliant, Lindsay Perigo, or anyone else creeping in here on OL under the account of anyone like you for a Branden-bashing routine.

The Valliant party-line is that since Nathaniel and Barbara admitted they deceived Rand over a period of years in the 1960's about Nathaniel's affair, this makes them irredeemably dishonest about practically all other issues in later life, including their public mea culpa in the 1980's and 90s after she passed away, and including now in 2010. (That's the boneheaded time-travel frozen abstraction stuff Valliant wallows in.)

You are free to preach that crap (or discuss it or analyze it or nitpick it or whatever the hell else you wish to do with it) over on SLOP, where they welcome Branden-bashing, and everywhere else on the entire world wide web for that matter.

As to here, please follow the site's guidelines.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

So, can one "energetically or forcefully" reprimand someone by halfheartedly going through the motions, and while feeling miserable about it? Probably not.

This settles it for me, here NB baldly contradicted himself within a single sentence! New PARC convert here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-jzblCbsuA

PS I don’t think Ellen’s crossed the line to Branden bashing. Yet. On this site.

PPS All they're talking about at Jabba's Palace is Cricket! And there's hardly any posts on that.

[Brant Gaede]

Doc, Linz even managed to flush out Valliant. The SOLOPIANS are turning into disapeareans.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

PPS All they're talking about at Jabba's Palace is Cricket! And there's hardly any posts on that.

ND,

Yup, it's mighty boring hanging out where all of your critics have been banned.

It must be frustrating, too. Ms. Stuttle made public statements of approval regarding some of the bans, and appears to have been just fine with the ones she made no statement about.

I guess she'll have to get caught up on cricket.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

If you read Linz's music gem of the day Lanza singing "I'll be seeing you" you'll find that he's contemplating leaving Objectivism because of the ARIans.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

The post reads as though Mr. Perigo might be ready to "flounce" from his own site.

That'll be the day.

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

So then you accept Hospers' story as to his receiving no hint of what was coming?

Yes. Hospers said that he had gotten no hint from Branden that he was going to be excommunicated. I see no reason to believe that that isn't true. Even if Branden had succeeded in his halfhearted attempts at reprimanding Hospers, it wouldn't be grounds for Hospers to suspect that he was going to be excommunicated. In fact, the fact that Hospers' invitation to visit Rand's hotel suite had not been revoked, and that he was being escorted there by Branden are not the type of things that would lead one to suspect that he was going to be excommunicated.

Is the prospect of excommunication usually something that's on one's mind? I've had lots of heated disagreements with people, but I can't remember ever thinking to myself that someone was about to excommunicate me.

I.e., you question -- as I was questioning to begin with -- Valliant's description (link): "We can certainly give [branden] the responsibility for the verbal lashing that Hospers got with [the AR/Hospers break]?"

I see no reason to believe that Branden didn't halfheartedly reprimand Hospers. It sounds as if "verbal lashing" would probably not be an accurate description of what happened.

I'm gathering, however, that you believe Branden's claim that he "was assigned the task of reading Hospers the riot act."

I see no reason not to accept Branden's statement that he was assigned the task of scolding Hospers, or that he made a halfhearted attempt at doing so.

Along with doubting that there indeed was a riot act read, I doubt that there was the assignment of such reading.

If "reading the riot act" means "energetically or forcefully reprimanding someone," then I too doubt that Hospers was energetically and forcefully reprimanded by Branden, since Branden's own statement suggests that he probably didn't energetically and forcefully reprimand Hospers. He merely halfheartedly reprimanded him.

J

[9thdoctor]

If you read Linz's music gem of the day Lanza singing "I'll be seeing you" you'll find that he's contemplating leaving Objectivism because of the ARIans.

Bwa-ha-ha! I took a screen shot, but can’t get the whole page, someone needs to save this, before he sobers up. He’s headed for a “divorce from Objectivism”?! I didn’t see where he and JV had totally broken up, yes it was getting rough, but that’s the way he is when he disagrees. Like the alpha pig in a crowded sty.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/7424

This is what should be the KASS Gem of the Day:

[Rich Engle]

Is the prospect of excommunication usually something that's on one's mind?

It's something to look forward to. It means you were doing something. 9-for-10, I always found it beneficial, cleansing. Occasionally profitable, even.

Plus, it cuts down on your phone calls and emails.

rde

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

The post reads as though Mr. Perigo might be ready to "flounce" from his own site.

That'll be the day.

Robert Campbell

His trick is to make everybody else doing the flouncing.

--Brant

it seems to be working

[Rich Engle]

it seems to be working

There's so a joke in there but why touch it?

rde

Resistance Is Futile

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Perigo has been owned!

LOL...

Maybe now he'll wake up and see how he was used.

The ARI folks had no intention ever of allowing him to be some kind of spokesperson for Objectivism.

Ever.

Here's what happened. They needed someone to shill for PARC because it was such a gawdawful mess, no one on that side wanted to be anywhere near it.

They needed someone... er... discardable...

Someone with a small audience. Someone who makes a lot of noise. But someone who ultimately wasn't a part of their plans.

Landing Perigo for PARC at a moment he was falling out with Barbara Branden was a gift from the gods. He was admired by TAS, emotionally out of whack and a trash-talker to boot. So he was really easy to get rid of when the time came. He came with reasons galore.

Well, the time started coming with Perigo's present disagreement with Valliant. Time to ship up or shape out. Let's start with Stalin, shall we?

No more saying that ARI's rewriting of history resembles Stalin's. That's a no-no if you want to stay and play.

And here's the catch. If he folded on that, the next demand would come. Say renouncing the fatwa comment. And then, if he folded on that, another and another and another until he got fed up and left. I don't believe anyone at ARI would imagine he would ever start singing their party line. So the only outcome feasable is him leaving. That's the game and I have no doubt that's how it's played.

Now here's the reality. PARC is dead with no chance of being resuscitated. Nice try, but no cigar. It fizzled. There was a flicker with Stuttle, but that died dead, too. So if Perigo can't plug PARC with any effect, and his Branden-bashing doesn't work, there goes his only real value to the orthodox.

Hanging around Perigo is now a liability for Valliant.

Time to move on.

If Perigo leaves Objectivism, that will only be gravy for the good folks at ARI who care about this. He served their purpose, they used him up, and if he left, that would leave them nothing to clean up. Easy as pie.

They win. He loses.

And all is right in the ortho-ARI world.

Let's see what plays out, but I admit, I'm enjoying this. I like to see the bad guys get it in the end. Seeing Perigo owned and discarded like a cheap whore, after seeing him do that to so many others, is a hoot.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

If Perigo leaves Objectivism

I can’t stop wondering what a “divorce from Objectivism” entails. Do you divide up the axioms and branches? This just goes to show how important a prenup can be. I’d insist on keeping Existence, I know I had that before the nuptials, so we can split Consiousness, Identity, Causality, and Volition equally.

No, I think he means he won’t be publicly representing himself as an Objectivist anymore. That’s good. He’s such an embarassment, a liability. It’s pretty cultish too, or tribal rather, to think of it that way. Divorce? When did Objectivism say “I do” to that pig?

[Brant Gaede]

Hanging around Perigo is now a liability for Valliant.

Time to move on.

If Perigo leaves Objectivism, that will only be gravy for the good folks at ARI who care about this. He served their purpose, they used him up, and if he left, that would leave them nothing to clean up. Easy as pie.

They win. He loses.

And all is right in the ortho-ARI world.

Let's see what plays out, but I admit, I'm enjoying this. I like to see the bad guys get it in the end. Seeing Perigo owned and discarded like a cheap whore, after seeing him do that to so many others, is a hoot.

They have not so much use for Valliant now, either. He's Objectivism's one-trick pony.

--Brant

[Selene]

Gentlemen:

I would insist on joint custody on existence.

Adam

do not know about Perigo or Valiant except from reading their thoughts sequences of words, punctuated and arranged in paragraphs.

However, just to be safe they would only have supervised visitation to existence.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Selene