New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Brant Gaede]

It would seem B.S. is full of bs. All she is illustrating is why there should not be an Ayn Rand Institute and why there never should have been one and why L.P. is a bad boy who has to be tolerated for pragmatic reasons.

--Brant

she's trapped by the Tar Baby

[Robert Campbell]

Ted and Shayne,

Again, the direct link to that 1972 Ford Hall Forum and answer (and Mayhew's entire rewrite) is here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7801&st=200&p=87193entry87193

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

I find there to be no excuse whatsoever for a *scholar* not to mark what words are actually hers and what words are actually his. And it drastically reduces the value, toward zero in fact, to have them taking total liberty regarding what to preserve and what to excise. Just utterly and completely obnoxious and beyond the pale.

Shayne,

No, there is no excuse whatsoever.

Which didn't prevent Mayhew from rewriting a large number of the answers that he included in his book.

Nor did it prevent Leonard Peikoff from directing Mayhew to rewrite them.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

I'm also told ARI is going to be explaining its stance

to its supporters in about a month. A month??!!

Yes, Debi Ghate has indicated that a month from now the

OAC will be providing "guidance" to its students (via

teleconference) as to why this is a "private matter."

As for the delay, I can't say I blame them. Personally,

if I had to explain to someone that this was a "private

matter" and keep a straight face, I would need a lot

longer than a month to prepare. I would need to empty

the contents of my brain, fill it with scrambled eggs

and copulate with an amoeba. That could take a while.

For my money, there won't be too many people on the

other end of that call who require instruction on this

question. The ones who do might be offered a job,

though.

Yeah, sure, it's a private matter.

That's why Leonard Peikoff's email to Arline Mann is sitting—with Pope Leonard's permssion!—on John McCaskey's website for everyone to read.

It is interesting to see Boaz Simovici resurface. Among the claque that followed Diana Hsieh over to SOLO, during her brief alliance with the Emperigo, he struck me as the least likely to parrot the party line indefinitely. And now he is no longer an ARIan. (He's still a little sensitive about the group takedown of Reginald Firehammer, but I can forgive him for that.)

Dayammm! If only Debi Ghate's "guidance" could end up on YouTube...

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

She asks whether ARI stifles creativity and intellectual independence as Tracinski claims and answers that in a way, it does -- and that this is a "GOOD thing." [Oh dear.] She says that ARI's mission is -- or should be -- to preserve, teach, and promote Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. And that to preserve Ayn Rand's legacy, ARI has to LIMIT themselves to the philosophy and ideas she ACTUALLY supported and not teach or promote anything else or in addition to that, no matter how true, worthy, or consistent it is with Objectivism.

I take it, then, that Betsy Speicher hasn't addressed the rewriting of Ayn Rand's philosophical journals and notes for her novels (by David Harriman), the rewriting of her lectures on fiction writing (by Tore Boeckmann), the rewriting of her lectures on nonfiction writing (by Robert Mayhew), the rewriting of her spoken answers to questions (by Bob Mayhew again), and the rewriting of her radio interviews (by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz).

All of this rewriting was done by ARI-affiliated intellectuals.

Robert Campbell

[Starbuckle]

Robert Campbell said, "I take it, then, that Betsy Speicher hasn't addressed [etc.]"

Everything she "addressed" in her post is supplied in my post about what she "addressed" in her post. No doubt she's aware of and accepts as the price of supporting ARI the mangling of Rand's words by ARI/Peikoff-approved editors, or if she is not currently aware of it would upon being adequately informed of the mangling accept it as the price of supporting ARI, given what she claims is ARI's net value.

I think that Speicher's argument itself is proof of the untenability of her conclusion that the intellect-curdling and ego-curdling effects of toeing the orthodox line are outweighed by the purported benefits of doing so. She is as intellectually honest as she can be in her covert memo, conceding the truth of all of Tracinski's reporting (which, of course, does not recount as much as it should), but then ends on, "So what? Intellectual independence and integrity are important but ain't all THAT important...not when it comes to the net social benefits of ARI's work, even given how on my own view it has radically compromised its proper mission! Sacrifice yourself to the common good, people! Get with the program!"

Maybe some of the kids introduced to The Fountainhead by the ARI contest will grow up to be great individualistic geniuses in their fields. There is no way to know whether this doing-good-despite-itself kind of outcome will in the long run render historically marginal all the harm those submitting to ARI/Peikoff do to themselves here and now. But since when is one's own individual good here and now properly compromised in light of the alleged social benefits of such self-compromising? And anyway, would there be no way for people with money to distribute copies of The Fountainhead if ARI were shuttered?

It seems that BS's piece is the very best she can do to champion a cause that she believes in...well, sort-of believes in. I think Randians cite Rand's characters a bit too much to make ethical-psychological points, but geez, when would Roark ever have said, "Okay, okay, you're right about the prospective social benefits, I'll stay on the project, go ahead and mangle the facade as long as you keep the common-good-serving structural part of the design intact!"

Tracinski is right, blow up this Cortlandt. But thoroughly.

Edited October 9, 2010 by Starbuckle

[william.scherk]

Dayammm! If only Debi Ghate's "guidance" could end up on YouTube...

It isn't clear yet if the OAC Presidium of the Central Committee will nominate Debi or someone else from inside the Kremlin to deliver the teleconference "guidance." Also not clear to my mind is how many folks will be part of this historic event.

Perhaps it will take a month for the OAC students to be vetted for purity of thought and intent. But I bet you that someone will do their very best to get the gist of the guidance session out into the air -- if not the content out to Youtube. I certainly will do my very best to cultivate Kremlin contacts.

Kudos to Starbuckle for the paraphrasing. Well done.

[sjw]

Why haven't more people here reviewed Mayhew's book on Amazon? It does not deserve 4 stars.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

One could call Galt's Gulch the "Pleasantville" of Objectivsm, whith all the happy people in that "Eu"topia sharing the same type of morality.

In its own way, Galt's Gulch is as much a closed system as Objectivism itself is. Dissenting moral views would certainly not not be allowed in GG. Dissenting moral views can't be allowed since the premises is that their morality is "right". Since refuting the premises of the morality equals refuting the rightness of the morality, no closed philosophical/ideological system will allow dissenters to go there.

Atlas Shrugged would have been far more politically correct if Galt's Gulch had instituted a moral diversity policy -- a kind of affirmative action program for statists. That way, Wesley Mouch, Floyd Ferris, James Taggart, and Robert Stadler and others with "morally dissenting views" could have joined the community and rubbed shoulders with John Galt. Of course, this would have made nonsense out of the entire plot of AS, but at least Xray would be happy.

As for the keen observation that the Gulchers believed that their morality is "right," I suppose they should have embraced a morality that they regarded as "wrong." The latter is what everyone else does, is it not? I know that I only hold moral principles that I believe to be wrong. I wouldn't want to be dogmatic, after all.

Sigh.....

Ghs

George,

Please read Brants # 415 nd # 418 posts. He got it. And I don't have the slightest doubt that you will have to agree with what he wrote. Let me know if you think I'm in error about this and explain why.

Of course we all believe "our" morality is "right", but that is not the point. The point is whether we allow others to question the premises on which we base that morality.

More tomorrow.

Brant is wrong to represent Galt's Gulch as a Utopia or a "perfect world." Consider this passage (p. 685):

"We had no rules of any kind," said Galt, "except one. When a man took our oath, it meant a single commitment: not to work in his own profession....Those who had to work, took the the lowest jobs they could find."

A community in which members vow not to work in their chosen professions and to take the lowest jobs they can find instead -- do you seriously think Rand meant this to depict an ideal perfect world? Are you nuts?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Why haven't more people here reviewed Mayhew's book on Amazon? It does not deserve 4 stars.

Shayne

I would give it 4 stars. It is a well-written, interesting, and (for the most part) reliable account. I don't evaluate books on the basis of whether or not I happen to agree with the contents. There are some pro-religious books to which I would give a 5-star rating.

Ghs

[sjw]

Why haven't more people here reviewed Mayhew's book on Amazon? It does not deserve 4 stars.

Shayne

I would give it 4 stars. It is a well-written, interesting, and (for the most part) reliable account. I don't evaluate books on the basis of whether or not I happen to agree with the contents. There are some pro-religious books to which I would give a 5-star rating.

Ghs

I don't think the issue at hand is whether or not one can agree with the contents, it is whether or not it is on some level misrepresentation and/or misappropriation.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Why haven't more people here reviewed Mayhew's book on Amazon? It does not deserve 4 stars.

Shayne

I would give it 4 stars. It is a well-written, interesting, and (for the most part) reliable account. I don't evaluate books on the basis of whether or not I happen to agree with the contents. There are some pro-religious books to which I would give a 5-star rating.

Ghs

I don't think the issue at hand is whether or not one can agree with the contents, it is whether or not it is on some level misrepresentation and/or misappropriation.

Shayne

Misrepresentation and/or misappropriation? Such as?

Ghs

[sjw]

Misrepresentation and/or misappropriation? Such as?

Ghs

Such as calling the book "Ayn Rand Answers" when it's not. Such as not being responsible regarding Rand's original words and telling us what she said, while trying to profit from giving us misrepresentations.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Misrepresentation and/or misappropriation? Such as?

Ghs

Such as calling the book "Ayn Rand Answers" when it's not. Such as not being responsible regarding Rand's original words and telling us what she said, while trying to profit from giving us misrepresentations.

Shayne

Whoops! I misread and thought you were referring to Harriman's book. My mistake. Sorry.

Ghs

[sjw]

Whoops! I misread and thought you were referring to Harriman's book. My mistake. Sorry.

Ghs

Well geez George, didn't you read the title of the thread? Er.... ;)

Shayne

[kiaer.ts]

I had just submitted a review of ARA to Amazon before reading the above comments. You had me worried there for a minute, George.

[Brant Gaede]

George: "Brant is wrong . . ."

If I had ever been wrong even once before, this wouldn't have come as such a shock.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Whoops! I misread and thought you were referring to Harriman's book. My mistake. Sorry.

Ghs

Well geez George, didn't you read the title of the thread? Er.... ;)

Shayne

I've been exercising tonight. That may explain my error.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I had just submitted a review of ARA to Amazon before reading the above comments. You had me worried there for a minute, George.

If I only worried you for a minute, consider yourself lucky. I've been known to worry people for years at a time.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

I had just submitted a review of ARA to Amazon before reading the above comments. You had me worried there for a minute, George.

If I only worried you for a minute, consider yourself lucky. I've been known to worry people for years at a time.

Ghs

Annoyed and disappointed are different from worried.

My review quotes the text and is currently 1350 words long. I may have to resubmit a shorter version.

[Robert Campbell]

Robert Campbell said, "I take it, then, that Betsy Speicher hasn't addressed [etc.]"

Everything she "addressed" in her post is supplied in my post about what she "addressed" in her post. No doubt she's aware of and accepts as the price of supporting ARI the mangling of Rand's words by ARI/Peikoff-approved editors, or if she is not currently aware of it would upon being adequately informed of the mangling accept it as the price of supporting ARI, given what she claims is ARI's net value.

Starbuckle,

Your net-out appeared to be comprehensive.

I just wanted to make sure that she hadn't mentioned the rewrites, because I haven't seen her low-circulation essay and you have.

I share your suspicion that Ms. Speicher would have an excuse ready at hand for the rewriting.

My only pragmatic suggestion to her would be that "Edited for clarity" is already worn out with repetition. Especially when so much of the editing has had the exact opposite effect.

Robert Cambpell

[william.scherk]

Brant is wrong to represent Galt's Gulch as a Utopia or a "perfect world." Consider this passage (p. 685):

"We had no rules of any kind," said Galt, "except one. When a man took our oath, it meant a single commitment: not to work in his own profession....Those who had to work, took the the lowest jobs they could find."

A community in which members vow not to work in their chosen professions and to take the lowest jobs they can find instead -- do you seriously think Rand meant this to depict an ideal perfect world?

The passage describes the rule for those who were to join The Strike on the outside, not the rule for the community of Galt's Gulch. The quote cited does not quite make Brant nuts for describing the gulch as a fictional utopia . . .

"We had no rules of any kind," said Galt, "except one. When a man took our oath, it meant a single commitment: not to work in his own profession, not to give to the world the benefit of his mind. Each of us carried it out in any manner he chose. Those who had money, retired to live on their savings. Those who had to work, took the lowest jobs they could find. Some of us had been famous; others-like that young brakeman of yours, whom Halley discovered-were stopped by us before they had set out to get tortured. But we did not give up our minds or the work we loved. Each of us continued in his real profession, in whatever manner and spare time he could manage-but he did it secretly, for his own sole benefit, giving nothing to men, sharing nothing. We were scattered all over the country, as the outcasts we had always been, only now we accepted our parts with conscious intention.

Edited October 9, 2010 by william.scherk

[sjw]

Well geez George, didn't you read the title of the thread? Er.... ;)

Shayne

I've been exercising tonight. That may explain my error.

Ghs

What a coincidence! Maybe that explains why I'm posting to the wrong thread...

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

ARI's "net" value.

Ayn Rand: poison wins so reject poison.

--Brant

reject you know who; she sold her soul to Pragmatism!

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I had just submitted a review of ARA to Amazon before reading the above comments. You had me worried there for a minute, George.

If I only worried you for a minute, consider yourself lucky. I've been known to worry people for years at a time.

Ghs

Annoyed and disappointed are different from worried.

My review quotes the text and is currently 1350 words long. I may have to resubmit a shorter version.

There are 257 reviews of ATCAG on Amazon. A few years ago I plowed through some of them, found one that accused me of plagiarizing from Walter Kaufmann, and wrote a very acerbic reply. My response was never posted.

Ghs