The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Yeah, what else would Jim Valliant be up to?

I think Jeff Smith has acquired some Facebook friends as a result...

Robert Campbell

[Ed Hudgins]

I might as well post my initial response to Flitton's accusation about "enemies of Objectivism," a response that elicited his denunciation of me and the others as "scum."

Facebook post:

Edward Hudgins Jeff Smith is on the mark!

We see in Rob Flitton's comment the irrationality of many who claim to follow a philosophy of reason. Flitton lists people he considers enemies of Any Rand. Let's leave out Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden for... the moment, though I don't consider them "enemies." I've known David Kelley for over 20 years and worked with him at The Atlas Society since 2002. I've known John and Marsha Enright since the late '90s. I've dealt with Chris Sciabarra for almost as long. On what basis does Flitton call them "enemies of Ayn Rand and Objectivism"? (By the way, what's important to me is the philosophy, not the personality though I am certainly a Rand fan,)

David had his falling out with ARI in the late '80s because he spoke at the Laissez-Faire Supper Club about how libertarians needed Objectivism. Peikoff at ARI made the collectivist and inaccurate judgement that all "libertarians" are malicious and undermine freedom and so if David even walked into the room with them to disagree with them, he'd be endorsing their evil. Even ARI has come around on this, recognizing that their are honest libertarians and dealing with them. (BBT's John Allison has spoken at [many] libertarian events and I first met Yaron Brook at such an event.) David was ahead of his time and hardly anti-Rand or Objectivism.

If you read David's, the Enrights' or Chris's writings or talk to them you find they advocate the Objectivist philosophy and think Rand personally was brilliant. You find that David especially has devoted his career to building on the philosophy. For example, in the late '70s I asked Rand if there were issues in which Objectivists needed to do more work to develop the philosophy further. She answered epistemology and the relationship between induction and deduction. David did just such a book, The Evidence of the Senses. (By the way, David attended Rand's funeral and read a poem. An enemy of Rand?)

So where does the "enemy of Rand and Objectivism" charge come from? Flitton seems to assert that because David has an intellectual disagreement with the folks at ARI concerning the nature of a philosophy as a body of knowledge, that he is Rand's and Objectivism's "enemy." We see here the tribalist or even cultist mindset. The world is divided into "them" and "us." Even someone who agrees with you on 95% of matters can be cast as "them" and an "enemy."

Friend or defriend whoever you want my friends. But recognize that following a rational philosophy includes making up your own mind; not assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest or malicious; not personally demonizing individuals over intellectual differences, and not making arbitrary judgments and classifications of individuals as friends or enemies when you don't know what you're talking about.

I say focus on the philosophy but if you're interesting in the Objectivist movement, check out http://www.atlassoci...tivist-movement .

July 25 at 11:41am · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading... ·

[Ed Hudgins]

And to help complete the picture, here is my response to Flitton's "scum" response, before he fled that thread along with his posted comments.

Facebook:

Edward Hudgins Would I be justified in calling Flitton "scum?"

Let's use Flitton's post as a teaching moment for Objectivists about judging the actions of individuals vs. the individuals themselves.

Let's assume that by "scum" we mean an individual who is personally dishonest, who is malicious—the opposite of benevolence—who profits at the expense of others, whose character is corrupt, etc.

My only encounters with Flitton are on this thread. What can I say about him? I see on his profile that he's married with children. Can I judge he mistreats his wife and neglects his children, reflecting the character of a "scum"? No.

Can I judge that he does not take his job seriously, that he takes no pride in his work, certainly reflecting a "scummy" character? No.

Can I judge that he lives to cheat others, to prosper not through productive work but as a looter, again reflecting his "scum-hood?" No.

Can I judge that because he likes Ayn Rand's books that there's something deeply flawed in his moral character? On the face of it, quite the contrary!

Can I judge that from the way that he denounces Kelley, the Enrights, et al. in the arbitrary and irrational manner described above that he has a serious problem with his thinking and his moral character, specifically in is inability to practice the virtues of justice? Yes I can.

And how should I judge his taking an intellectual disagreement as necessarily a manifestation of evil behavior and character on the part of Kelley, the Enrights, et al.? I would judge that this is the logical—or illogical—outcome of treating a body of knowledge like sacred texts, not to be as knowledge arrived at through a rational process and that is open to further understanding and elaboration.

I would say that there's an indication [of] a possible character flaw when those who adhere to this belief find themselves making the kind of denunciations that Flitton does and fail to stop themselves, step back and ask: "What am I doing? This isn't right. Can I read Kelley's serious and considered book on 'The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand' and if I disagree with him denounce him as 'scum' and dishonest?" http://www.atlassoci...of_Ayn_Rand.pdf

I won't make that judgment of Flitton here but suggest that this is the danger for those who approach Rand as sacred text.

Is all this enough to label Flitton a "scum"? I think not and in any case, calling names in this context simply obscures the issues involved. An objective judgment of Flitton by me would be what I outlined above. This is not, of course, how Flitton makes his judgments of others. Sadly, his sort of non-objective, arbitrary, and unjust approach to judging individuals has been too widespread in the Objectivist movement. Let's hope by exposing it and explaining it's flaws that those open-minded observers reading threads like these will see that such behavior is not a manifestation of flaws in the Objectivist philosophy but, rather, in still-too-many of those who profess adherence to it.

See MoreJuly 25 at 2:52pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personMarsha Enright likes this.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed,

Let me do a well-deserved positive note.

You posted good words on that thread about some of the people being attacked as "enemies of Rand" yada yada yada. If I remember your phrase correctly, it was "some of the finest people I know."

I want to reiterate that and make your words mine. Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden (whom I hold a very special love for), Marsha and John Enright, and you are some of the finest people I know.

I'm leaving out a lot of really fine people, too. But I don't want to go overboard...

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

And to help complete the picture, here is my response to Flitton's "scum" response, before he fled that thread along with his posted comments.

(snip to save bandwidth - - read Ed Hudgins' entire post above - it is very good!!!)

Excellent post, Ed. It is ironic how the phrasing in We the Living so often gets echoed by the denouncers. When it is phrasing which Rand had spoken by those she abhorred.

Comrade Sonia and more...

Bill P

Edited July 29, 2010 by Bill P

[9thdoctor]

I perceive an uptick in ARIan tribalism, and note the correlation to the large dose of Kool-Aid having been served so recently to the faithful (OCON). In the stock market they warn about trying to “call a top” (or a bottom), but I’m going to go out on a limb here and do just that. I point to Peikoff’s retirement, and the upcoming AS movie as the underlying change drivers. Here’s hoping it’s never this bad again.

On a related note, there's no way in hell I'd ever want Comrade Sonia listed as my "friend".

[anthony]

As a not entirely irrelevant aside to the above incident, it's noticeable that where you find a person who portrays true benevolence, there is also a truly independent individualist; while the tribalist can only portray a narrow intolerance.

Tony

[Neil Parille]

As far as James Valliant and scholarship goes, his book isn't mentioned on this list of material from the Archives:

The following selected bibliography and list of sound recordings consist of works published or edited by Ayn Rand during her lifetime, including lectures given under her auspices, as well as anthologies and secondary literature

You will note that the Letters and Journals are mentioned.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ayn_rand_archives_biblio

-Neil Parille

Edited July 30, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Neil Parille]

Incidentally, PARC has been reviewed on Amazon 3 times since the end of 2008.

-Neil Parille

[Brant Gaede]

Incidentally, PARC has been reviewed on Amazon 3 times since the end of 2008.

-Neil Parille

I promised Barbara I'd review it there, but there wasn't any need after you did.

--Brant

thanks

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I suppose I should say something about this, but I sure as hell don't want to start a new thread about it. So this thread will do just fine.

Lindsay Perigo announced that he has cancer (see here).

He claimed that this is "good news" for "Brandroids" and others identified by his litany of jargon.

He announced this on Nov. 25 and nobody said anything anywhere I can discern so far other than at SLOP, which is what I believe this news deserves. Silence reflects lack of interest and I don't believe many people other than lovers and haters of Perigo are interested in his prostate. So, as a "Brandroid," I don't find this good news or bad news. It's more like no news.

However, there is a point to my post that ties in with this thread: the varied sense of life you find in the Objectivist and Objectivism-friendly subcommunity.

Notice that Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo automatically assumes that people see the world as he does and his critics take pleasure in his suffering. I know I don't take pleasure in his suffering and I am on record as being one of his harshest critics. I don't imagine many folks here at OL take pleasure in his suffering, either. Not even in the prospect of his death just so he will shut up.

Without construing my words to be a sanction of the malicious crap this person constantly produces, I do hope his suffering ends soon and he is restored to health. I wish this for him as I wish it for any human being. I suspect many here on OL feel as I do. In my case, anyone who knows me would have no problem guessing my attitude. It's a no-brainer. I'm an open book on these things and I have been for years.

So why did this dude think others would consider his health woes as good news?

I know the answer.

Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo would think it was good news if the tables were turned.

A good guy mentality is inconceivable to this petty little person. Good guys don't take pleasure in the suffering of others. Bullies do. Perigo does and calls it KASS.

This jerk is on record wishing for Obama--before he took office--to be beaten to death and hung upside down like Mussolini. He took delight in contemplating the painful death of Frank Zappa. And there are sundry other acts of disgusting sadism he has expressed over the years--all in the name of Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

That's one mentality--one sense of life.

I fiercely reject it as anything but bigoted.

People like Perigo who think like that have no cognitive room for identifying my kind of mentality and that of others around here. On the deepest level, his hatred qua hatred is so strong he doesn't even know we exist.

Literally.

Anyway, that's a wrap. All the news that's fit to be no news.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I really do hope Lindsay Perigo's prostate cancer takes a different course from Frank Zappa's. It's been detected much earlier.

I'll leave it at that.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

He's unlikely to be killed by prostate cancer, but it's possible if it's the aggressive kind. Some of these cancers are merely monitored. Surgery can stop some of these cancers but debilitate the patient. I myself am likely to eventually get prostate cancer. Even an aggressive cancer could take years to kill a patient in the context of surgeries. The problem is when it leaves the prostate and gets into the bones, something that might be facilitated by biopsies and surgery. He'll likely still be with us ten years from now, even if still with this cancer, but if they cut it out now he won't have it then for I think they'll remove the entire prostate. Doctors at Johns-Hopkins perfected the technique of removing the organ but leaving the nerve controlling erectile function intact. I hope that that is what they do now in New Zealand.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

Notice that Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo automatically assumes that people see the world as he does and his critics take pleasure in his suffering.

That sums it up nicely.

I think the best that we can hope for is that when his doctors go after the cancer, they'll also take the opportunity to surgically remove Pigero's head from his ass and scrape down a lot of the thickness and density of his skull. In surviving cancer, most people usually become more compassionate about others going through the same type of thing, but I fear that, without a cephalanalectomy, Pigero will eventually announce how heroic he is for still being "KASS" enough to take pleasure in others suffering from cancer.

J

[Philip Coates]

> I think the best that we can hope for is that when his doctors go after the cancer, they'll also take the opportunity to surgically remove Pigero's head from his ass

Wow. What a mean-spirited post.

I've come to expect sort of a seething, context-dropping malice from J. (toward me, toward Objectivism, toward Rand, toward Newberry, toward anyone he strongly disagrees with).

But this is a new low in "kick 'em and stomp 'em when they have a life-threatening illness" nastiness.

[Brant Gaede]

> I think the best that we can hope for is that when his doctors go after the cancer, they'll also take the opportunity to surgically remove Pigero's head from his ass

Wow. What a mean-spirited post.

I've come to expect sort of a seething, context-dropping malice from J. (toward me, toward Objectivism, toward Rand, toward Newberry, toward anyone he strongly disagrees with).

But this is a new low in "kick 'em and stomp 'em when they have a life-threatening illness" nastiness.

It's pretty bad all right. It's about 10% as bad as Perigo himself is bad and about one percent as damaging as Perigo has damaged others. J. should be ashamed.

--Brant

really--really ashamed

[Jonathan]

Wow. What a mean-spirited post.

I've come to expect sort of a seething, context-dropping malice from J. (toward me, toward Objectivism, toward Rand, toward Newberry, toward anyone he strongly disagrees with).

It's always amusing that when I criticize Objectivists' seething malice -- toward art that they don't like or understand, toward philosophers whom they either haven't read or understood, toward history that they selectively misinterpret, toward anyone who points out their Object-fever blunders-- that my criticisms are seen as viciousness.

But this is a new low in "kick 'em and stomp 'em when they have a life-threatening illness" nastiness.

You should see if you can get a two-for-one deal from Pigero's doctors and get your head removed from your ass at the same time, Phil.

J

[Rich Engle]

He considers himself not a person, but a Personality of Great Note. Adding to that the fact that he is a such a foppish drama queen, it is not that hard to understand why he would do a press release about something like this. Now, the world will wait bated. He will have a lot of options, considering his personality--to do the Stoic Thing (with a little teardrop squirting out here and there), or of course if he gets it under control, he can write all about the noble suffering. Basically, even though he is no doubt shitting his large, lacy undergarments about it, he can't resist this viable, compelling copy.

There are, no doubt, all kinds of people who write on the O-boards who are dealing with that, and worse. Oh yeah, way worse, like Chris S. is--and look how he has always handled that--like a man, and a gracious one at that.

So, sorry for his bad day, but whatever.

rde

Glove Up, Baby.

[Philip Coates]

> I criticize Objectivists' seething malice

False (and disingenuous) summing up.

[kiaer.ts]

> I criticize Objectivists' seething malice

False (and disingenuous) summing up.

Phil, I have never said anything about this before, but I agree with the general criticism that your way of citing quotes is annoying and unhelpful.

And please do not even respond to Jonathan's post below. You are absolutely correct about his meanspiritedness and no further proof is necessary or response on your part warranted.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Jonathan]

> I criticize Objectivists' seething malice

False (and disingenuous) summing up.

No, it's quite an accurate summing up of what I do.

Take a look at your own childish behavior on the Flame War Rant thread. God, it's embarrassing, but take a look again anyway. It's probably the best example that I've ever personally experienced of seething Objectivist malice. Newberry's malice toward Kant and the history of aesthetics can be a bit disturbing, but it's nowhere near the irrational, drooling-beast rage that my well-reasoned criticisms of his (and Rand's and other Objectivists') opinions seems to inspire in you, Phil. I really don't know why you're so filled with hatred, or why you find my criticisms of others' ideas so upsetting. I can only assume that it's because I'm such a rational and thorough critic, where you, on the other hand, are quite intellectually lazy and often willfully blind to reality.

J

Edited November 28, 2010 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

I guess it takes an artist to understand an artist.

You're good. Oh... you're good.

(I mean that.)

Michael

EDIT: I missed Ted's thing. I think he's doing it, too.

[Rich Engle]

"Now, it is very difficult to do. It has always been very easy for me to put on a show and be cocky, and be flooded with a cocky feeling and feel pretty cool and all that. I can make all kinds of phoney things. Blinded by it. Or I can show some really fancy movement. But to experience oneself honestly, not lying to oneself, and to express myself honestly, now that is very hard to do." --Bruce Lee

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wish I knew what made Phil tick.

There is a famous sequence in the Peanuts cartoon where Charlie Brown asks Lucy to hold the football for him so he can kick it. He makes her promise not to pull the ball away. She always does at the last moment and he always goes flying through the air.

I get this same feeling when I see Phil lecturing others. Except instead of making people promise not to pull the ball away, he just comes up, gives it to whoever is around and says, "Hold this for me." Then, he goes back and runs up to kick the ball. And they pull it away at the last moment (which they always do, since everyone knows Phil's habits by now). Off he goes into the air, screaming, "Ahhhhhh!"

And it never changes.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I find Phil just as baffling.

Before complaining about what people have said on this thread regarding Lindsay Perigo, Phil should look up what Perigo said, repeatedly, gleefully, about Frank Zappa.

Robert Campbell