New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[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.

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

I wrote three reviews of over 1,000 words length which I submitted without saving. They disappeared. After the third I cam across the rule that reviews should be under 1000 words. They do not adhere to this strictly, perhaps not for the first reviews posted. My reviews of The Vision of Ayn Rand and Harriman are each over 1000 words and were posted. I see that Shayne's, which I assume he wrote today, was posted. So I wonder if mine, which was written today, will be rejected. They do not advise you if a review has been rejected.

[sjw]

I wrote three reviews of over 1,000 words length which I submitted without saving. They disappeared. After the third I cam across the rule that reviews should be under 1000 words. They do not adhere to this strictly, perhaps not for the first reviews posted. My reviews of The Vision of Ayn Rand and Harriman are each over 1000 words and were posted. I see that Shayne's, which I assume he wrote today, was posted. So I wonder if mine, which was written today, will be rejected. They do not advise you if a review has been rejected.

Mine was posted immediately, so it must have something to do with word limits.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

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

My friend

came over earlier this evening to watch Python's Life of Brian. (I have seen the movie many times, but it was Colley's first time.) Colley, being fond of exercise, figured that a bottle of Jack would make the movie even funnier. And he was right. He almost fell out of his chair from laughing so hard. Or maybe it was from all the exercise....In any case, as I put him into a cab, he kept muttering, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

Ghs

[sjw]

My friend

came over earlier this evening to watch Python's Life of Brian. (I have seen the movie many times, but it was Colley's first time.) Colley, being fond of exercise, figured that a bottle of Jack would make the movie even funnier. And he was right. He almost fell out of his chair from laughing so hard. Or maybe it was from all the exercise....In any case, as I put him into a cab, he kept muttering, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

Ghs

Now I'm going to have to rent that one... What a cultured place you must live in, there's nothing similar to a "chess bar" here. Do they have coffee shops where you can debate ideas too?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

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 . . .

He was not shooting at me, William, but Xray. It's generally understood I'm nuts and I'm sure George wouldn't flog a dead horse. The real problem is that he's been exercising.

--Brant

[Starbuckle]

Robert Campbell wrote: "I share your suspicion that Ms. Speicher would have an excuse ready at hand for the rewriting."

That may be true but is not what I am suggesting. Based on what she says in her recent post, even if she would offer no excuse for the rewriting--i.e., even if BS agreed that us that it willfully distorts Rand and should not have been done--BS would likely conclude that this dereliction of duty is also no reason to withdraw support from ARI. What would regard as a good reason to finally step abetting all this kind of thing? I guess if Peikoff and the other principals were caught shouting from the rooftops, over and over, "We renounce Rand and Objectivism and accept Kant and subjectivist whim worship, and hope that Obama succeeds in destroying all freedom!," that might do it. It would have to be videotaped and the video would have to be available on YouTube.

Edited October 9, 2010 by Starbuckle

[George H. Smith]

My friend

came over earlier this evening to watch Python's Life of Brian. (I have seen the movie many times, but it was Colley's first time.) Colley, being fond of exercise, figured that a bottle of Jack would make the movie even funnier. And he was right. He almost fell out of his chair from laughing so hard. Or maybe it was from all the exercise....In any case, as I put him into a cab, he kept muttering, "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

Ghs

Now I'm going to have to rent that one... What a cultured place you must live in, there's nothing similar to a "chess bar" here. Do they have coffee shops where you can debate ideas too?

Shayne

Of all the things that I might and have called Bloomington, "cultured" is not one of them. Churches and bars compete for the highest number of cultural institutions.

The fact that Bloomington has a remarkable chess cafe of a quality that even much larger cities cannot match is wholly owing to the vision and initiative of Colley.

I don't preach philosophy or politics to friends. I have been good friends with Colley for several years now, and though he knew that I like Ayn Rand, I never pushed her books on him. But a few months ago Colley learned that I have the audio version of Atlas , and he asked if he could borrow the discs and listen to them. He has since become a Rand enthusiast, and he has turned his roommate (who also listened to the novel) into a fan as well. Colley came over a few days ago to watch Paxton's Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. I warned him beforehand about the Orwellian treatment of the Brandens but said that the film is otherwise excellent. Colley was fascinated, even touched, by Rand's story.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

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 . . .

Point taken. You could have also cited the title of Chapter 2 (Part III), "The Utopia of Greed."

Nevertheless, Galt's Gulch is not the depiction of a "Utopia" in any traditional sense of that term, such as found in Thomas More's famous account. (More coined the word "Utopia," which means "nowhere.")

Although the oath I cited does indeed pertain to people outside of Galt's Gulch, it is also the case that many residents of Galt's Gulch work at mundane jobs. Dagny, for example, offers to work as a "cook and housemaid" for Galt (for ten dollars a month, plus room and board) and he accepts her offer.

Galt's Gulch is exactly what Rand says it is, i.e., a community of individualists who are on strike against self-sacrifice. The conditions are far from ideal, as we find in conventional utopias. It is more of an emergency arrangement necessitated by intolerable external conditions. It is "ideal" only in the sense that its members share the common values of individualism. It is anything but ideal in its depiction of social and economic institutions, which, in many cases, are not advanced enough to permit the members to pursue their most highly valued professions.

[Later edit: Instead of "Utopia," I would use the old Puritan expression "City on a Hill" to describe Galt's Gulch.]

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

G.G. is not a "City on a Hill." It is tolerable as a private estate from which its members go back into the world. It is intolerable as a Utopia so it's not--so I was wrong about that (sue me)--but if you want to be a Mormon and only live amongst Mormons, go right ahead; be an Objectivist and live only amongst Objectivists, but, God-damn!, don't be awakened by your spouse stabbing you with a knife all to death!, because she wants to break bread and you want to slice it!

--Brant

I'm out of the hard stuff so it's time to stuff it

[Peter]

Thanks to Ellen Stuttle for this direct link. Lindsay Perigo does have a way with words, so I am reprinting this excellent post. (Sorry if someone else already did. I don’t have time to do more than skim 22 pages of OL replies.)

That last paragraph of Lindsay’s post from the thread, “Does a Leonard ever change its spots?” on SOLO is a stunning indictment.

“Get thee to a nunnery!”

Hamlet

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2010-10-08 08:44.

"... that something has become way to *creepy* for want of a better word, when a question like this even needs to be asked in its circles."

It is completely nuts, but the intellectual integrity of the most prominent and by far the best funded Objectivist think tank depends on the answer to that question. Hopefully the ugly necessity of the question will spawn some honest cultural changes.

Anyone who reads the SOLO Credo can see that changing the culture of Objectivism, as well as of the world in general, was part of the original agenda. It remains so, and clearly needs to be reiterated with some urgency. As already explained, at one point I was persuaded that ARI had made the necessary changes itself. The fatwa should have made me realize that this wasn't so, not so much because of the rush of blood to Leonard's head, but the lock-step lemming-like behaviour of those who sanctioned and actively supported it. Now, Leonard has had another rush of blood to the head. Some of the original lemmings have found this one too much, and reversed direction. Hurrah! But their voice is muted, and some are still too scared to speak up publicly and are timorously awaiting the ARI's Big Announcement On This Matter, which is about a month away(!!!!!), while being contemptibly afraid to try to influence it.

Once and for all, the roar needs to go out: Religious intrinsicism and bigotry are incompatible with a philosophy of reason. Those who preach the latter and practice the former are hypocrites and traitors. They are enemies of independent judgment and the right to get it wrong without being damned to hell. Once and for all this beautiful philosophy needs to be rid of them.

Peikoff, Binswanger, Schwartz, and all your lackeys and echo-chambers ... in the name of Galt, go, and take your strutting, snot-nosed pseudo-superiority with you. You have tried to sacrifice the integrity of Objectivism on the altar of your own vaingloriousness, which Narcissistic perversion you have equated with objective self-esteem. "Objectivism, c'est moi"?? Not to put too fine a point on it, fuck the fuck off. Go, go, go!! Begone!! Get thee to nunneries—nunneries would be far more congenial for your mentalities than the open sunlit field which you have prevented Objectivism from being!! We who remain will honor your great moments (even though you yourselves have honored them more in the breach than in the observance) and strive to bring them to consummation in a way your tawdry prosaic vanities would never allow.

[Peter]

It's odd but if you look at his picture on his site, Leonard seems to be physically morphing into Ayn Rand. He sounds completely rational and worthy of respect in his podcast, answering the following question.

Peter

"Can two Objectivists disagree about a particular point without one of them being cast out of Objectivist society?"

http://www.peikoff.com/2010/10...

[Brant Gaede]

It's odd but if you look at his picture on his site, Leonard seems to be physically morphing into Ayn Rand. He sounds completely rational and worthy of respect in his podcast, answering the following question.

Peter

"Can two Objectivists disagree about a particular point without one of them being cast out of Objectivist society?"

http://www.peikoff.com/2010/10...

That was Neil's question.

I have to agree with Barbara that he's not demented, but those who keep kowtowing to him might end up that way if they don't default to out and out pragmatism.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

Peikoff, Binswanger, Schwartz, and all your lackeys and echo-chambers ... in the name of Galt, go, and take your strutting, snot-nosed pseudo-superiority with you. You have tried to sacrifice the integrity of Objectivism on the altar of your own vaingloriousness, which Narcissistic perversion you have equated with objective self-esteem. "Objectivism, c'est moi"?? Not to put too fine a point on it, fuck the fuck off. Go, go, go!! Begone!! Get thee to nunneries—nunneries would be far more congenial for your mentalities than the open sunlit field which you have prevented Objectivism from being!! We who remain will honor your great moments (even though you yourselves have honored them more in the breach than in the observance) and strive to bring them to consummation in a way your tawdry prosaic vanities would never allow.

Perigo the pedant can't even get his pseudo-old fashioned grammar right. "Get thee to nunneries"? How sad. This is like listening to Alan Grayson berate Bill Clinton, as if the former had the standing to criticize the latter for his lack of class. "Fuck the fuck off" indeed.

Is this the sort of stuff you admire, Peter?

Edited October 9, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Peter]

Ted Keer: Today, 11:27 AM quoted SOLO:

"Fuck the fuck off"

Is this the sort of stuff you admire, Peter?

end quote

No, Ted, I don’t regularly go to SOLO. I simply followed a link. I dislike the eff word, and rarely if ever use it myself. I do not plan on going SOLO for a while.

Two new phrases that apply to me:

“I am a Tea Party Supporter,”

And, “I am an “Independent Objectivist.”

Wow. It's 74 degrees outside. I am going to jog and then work outside.

Here is some follow-up from Robert Tracinski.

Peter

TIA Daily • October 6, 2010

COMMENTARY

Liberty for the Wolves

The main commentary below is about national politics, but I wanted to first offer a brief follow-up to my "Anthemgate" article of last week.

I have been gratified at the volume of positive responses I have gotten, and I'm sorry I haven't been able to reply to all of you individually. I didn't know how far I was going beyond what my readers were ready to hear, and what I discovered is that a lot of you were, in fact, ready to hear it.

I have been happiest to see people picking up the "Independent Objectivist" label. And yes, I know the term is, or ought to be, redundant. But it's a useful redundancy, like "individual rights" or "free scientific inquiry." It underscores a characteristic that is already inherent in the concept.

The reason it is catching on is that Objectivists seem to be ready for a term they can adopt that doesn't dragoon them into any particular pre-existing camp, faction, or controversy. And the beauty of this term, I should add, is that it doesn't require putting yourself into the Tracinski camp on every issue.

In that regard, I have to share an amusing comment I got from a friend, who applauded the new label but added: "If you now start up an Institute for Independent Objectivism, I'll kill you." So to reassure you, I'm content just to remain as the publisher of TIA and TIA Daily. I should add, though, that my point is not that there should be no Objectivist institutions, but rather that there should be more than one. My point is that a healthy movement has multiple institutions, some non-profit, some for-profit; it has think tanks, publications, grass-roots activist groups, and so on. These institutions offer a variety of perspectives and are not necessarily exclusive of each other in their ideology, so that there are multiple alternatives for those looking to offer funding or grass-roots support, or for those offering their talents as writers and intellectuals.

So if you want to support TIA, for example, I will personally be very grateful. But my wider advice is to approach this as an active-minded investor of whatever time and money you have to offer. The most important thing you can do is to spend the time to come to your own informed judgment about who is producing the best ideas and how you can accomplish the most with your support.

I do think we should try to do what we can to reconstitute the Objectivist movement as quickly as possible along these Independent Objectivist lines. I have ideas of my own about what can and should be done. Some require very little money, some a lot. Some of them are things I would like to do, some are outside my field of interest, and many of them are beyond my organizational skills. I also know that I'm not going to have all of the answers, particularly in this new uncharted territory we've just entered, so I would like to hear your suggestions about what to do and how to do it. Just reply to this e-mail, and I will share with my readers some of the best ideas that people send in.

All right, now that that's over, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

end quote

[Robert Campbell]

Peter,

What you quoted was still more denunciatory bloviating from Lindsay Perigo.

Aside from an occasional gush about his faves, such bloviation is all that he produces.

The only good thing about this particular instance: by continuing to rip the ARIans, Perigo is guaranteeing that Jim Valliant will never return to SOLO.

Robert Campbell

PS. In Shakespearean English, that would be "Get you to nunneries."

[kiaer.ts]

PS. In Shakespearean English, that would be "Get you to nunneries."

God bless you! I was just about to ask Phil if I could borrow his noose and step ladder.

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

I think Valliant will return to SOLO. He likes a forum where he can pose as an independent "scholar."

Does anyone know if he, IP160 or Pelagius1 are back on Wikipedia?

-Neil Parille

[kiaer.ts]

Robert,

I think Valliant will return to SOLO. He likes a forum where he can pose as an independent "scholar."

Does anyone know if he, IP160 or Pelagius1 are back on Wikipedia?

-Neil Parille

IP 160: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=72.199.110.160

[Neil Parille]

I thought Valliant had been banned for life from editing the Rand and Objectivism entries.

-Neil Parille

[kiaer.ts]

I thought Valliant had been banned for life from editing the Rand and Objectivism entries.

-Neil Parille

Under what name? Do you have any link to that claim?

And, especially, any link to Valliant admitting edits were from the same household?

Edited October 9, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Robert Campbell]

I thought Valliant had been banned for life from editing the Rand and Objectivism entries.

Neil,

Jim and Holly Vallant were banned for life from putting material about PARC on Wikipedia, or inserting references to it anywhere.

They were topic-banned for six months

The AnonIP160 edit list shows editing resuming on September 6, 2010, and in earnest on September 24. Topics and changes suggest the involvement of both Valliants.

They haven't forsworn all of their old habits. The user page for IP160 remains blank, and the talk page has nothing new on it:

http://en.wikipedia....:72.199.110.160

The 6-month ban notice, dated May 2, 2009, is still visible at the bottom.

I was active on Wikipedia for a while. Kind of lost interest after that. I suppose it would be a good idea to keep an eye on IP160, though.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

Thanks for the clarification.

-Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

I think Valliant will return to SOLO. He likes a forum where he can pose as an independent "scholar."

Neil,

You're right that he craves such a forum.

But ARI and ARC editorials stopped appearing on SOLO in April. Now maybe somebody in Irvine was monitoring SOLO and got tired of Lindsay Perigo's anti-ARI rhetoric. Or maybe Valliant told someone in Irvine that they should now be considering Perigo's rhetoric to be excessive.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Meanwhile, Pelagius1 has been inactive since June 13, 2009.

Robert Campbell

[Xray]

- editing -

Edited October 9, 2010 by Xray