New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[Selene]

I wrote: "When did Woody Allen molest a child?"

Selene wrote: "His adopted daughter was close enough for me."

The relationship between Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn/Farrow was publicized in 1992, when Soon-Yi was 22. (They are still married.)

I withdraw the statement. Obviously I was wrong.

Adam

[Reidy]

Seems to me Isaiah (#489) is the real pervert here.

[Selene]

Seems to me Isaiah (#489) is the real pervert here.

LOL - now that was funny!

[George H. Smith]

Seems to me Isaiah (#489) is the real pervert here.

Albert Jay Nock's Isaiah's Job (1936) is a must read. The similarities between Nock's Remnant and Rand's Strikers have often been noted. In any case, Nock presents a compelling argument for not watering down one's principles in a futile attempt to convert the "masses."

Ghs

[sjw]

Seems to me Isaiah (#489) is the real pervert here.

Albert Jay Nock's Isaiah's Job (1936) is a must read. The similarities between Nock's Remnant and Rand's Strikers have often been noted. In any case, Nock presents a compelling argument for not watering down one's principles in a futile attempt to convert the "masses."

Ghs

Nock's a fascinating character. I think Rand got closer to the truth than he did regarding how ideas spread, though her model is not without its own faults.

Shayne

[anthony]

Seems to me Isaiah (#489) is the real pervert here.

Albert Jay Nock's Isaiah's Job (1936) is a must read. The similarities between Nock's Remnant and Rand's Strikers have often been noted. In any case, Nock presents a compelling argument for not watering down one's principles in a futile attempt to convert the "masses."

Ghs

Thanks.

A very worthwhile read, and it closely fits my image of Objectivism's future, as more heavily influential than numerous.

'The Objectivist Remnant'- sounds good to me.

[william.scherk]

The text of the ARI 'guidance' teleconference announcement is now on field.

What makes this interesting is the Q and A. -- I wonder how forthright will be the questions put to the Kremlin representatives. The feebleness of the email itself portends an equally feeble teaching moment on November 8. But who knows, there is a fierce head of steam built up among ARI supporters, and maybe everyone on the line will get with reality and realize that Uncle Grandpa needs a talking to and his handlers and toadies need to give their fucking heads a shake.

From SOLO via Boaz the Boor:

Dear OAC Students,

We're looking forward to starting up the OAC year in a few weeks, and to seeing all of you in class soon. In the meantime, we want to invite you to a phone meeting we're planning to have with the entire OAC student body (this is the first such meeting, I believe.)

For those of you who spend time on Facebook, you've likely become aware of various discussions on the internet by some Objectivists regarding Dr. John McCaskey's recent resignation from ARI's Board of Directors. We understand that some of you have questions, and more importantly, that some of you are genuinely struggling with how one should respond based on the limited public information and subsequent "chatter". We therefore want to meet with all of you to discuss both why Dr. McCaskey's resignation is a private matter, and more urgently, to provide some guidance on how to objectively think and communicate about a matter that appears as difficult to understand as this one does. [!!!]

Because of our travel schedules, the meeting will be a few weeks away on Monday, November 8, 2010 at 2 p.m. PT. This meeting will take place via the OAC bridge line (dial in to 1-800-xxx-xxxx, enter Guest Access Code xxx#.) Yaron Brook, Onkar Ghate and I will speak with all of you then--and we're looking forward to it. Because there will likely be many people on the line, it may be hard for us to take questions live so I'm asking you to send any questions you might have to oac@aynrand.org by November 1, 2010. Your questions will help us frame the discussion so we encourage you to send those in.

(Please note, this phone call is for registered OAC students only. The phone access information is confidential and should not be shared or distributed.)

Have a good few weeks, and we'll "see" you all in class soon.

Best regards,

--[name omitted]

[kiaer.ts]

We therefore want to meet with all of you to discuss both why Dr. McCaskey's resignation is a private matter, and more urgently, to provide some guidance on how to objectively think and communicate about a matter that appears as difficult to understand as this one does.

If this doesn't lead to more resignations it taints those who submit to it "irrevocably." Now we will see what Yaaron Brook is made of.

[George H. Smith]

Galt's Gulch was conceived as a temporary refuge, not as a permanent community of cultish true-believers.

But still, it was model of how a "good" (in Rand's sense, not in mine) society was to be like, right?

The only "moral absolute" in Galt's Gulch is agreement on the principle that people do not exist for the sake of others and that "reason is their only means of trade." This is Randian individualism.

Which means that there exist many different concepts of "individualism", of which Rand's is only one example. But if we have a whole gamut of such concepts of individualism, then to find a common denominator for them all will pose quite a philosophical challenge.

There are not "many different concepts" of political individualism. For nearly two centuries "individualism" (the word was coined, or at least popularized, by Saint-Simonians in the early 19th century) has been associated with the classical liberal tradition, according to which people should be free to pursue their own values so long as they respect the equal freedom of others.

Another question I have is: can the idea of a "moral absolute" be reconciled with the notion of individualism at all? Does a "moral absolute" even exist, given the fact that moral systems are subject to permanent change?

Of course I can call moral absolute anything I like. For example, one can I can call moral absolute what is actually merely a rigid moral rule..

In an islamic fundamentalist society, it is regarded as a "moral absolute" that a female has to remain a virgin until her marriage.

You can also call a pimple on your ass a "moral absolute," if you like. There is nothing to stop you, except a due regard for coherence and rational standards -- and you have never let those stand in your way before.

Ghs

[william.scherk]

And here comes Diana Hsieh, with husband Paul Hsieh, at Noodlefood . . . offering "The Resignation of John McCaskey: The Facts."

"As some of you might already know, Dr. John P. McCaskey resigned from the Board of Directors of both the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) and the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship in early September. He did so in response to an ultimatum by Dr. Leonard Peikoff in an e-mail to Arline Mann, the co-chair of ARI's Board.

Before you read further, you should read Dr. McCaskey's announcement of his resignation. It includes Dr. Peikoff's letter in full, reproduced with the permission of Dr. Peikoff and ARI.

We -- Diana and Paul -- are deeply concerned about this conflict because of its three-fold impact on our values. First, we've been public supporters of and donors to ARI and Anthem for many years. We care about their use of our donations, and we want them to be effective in performing their respective missions. Second, we're heavily invested in the broader Objectivist movement. We're concerned for its efficacy, direction, and credibility. We do not wish to see the recent work of scholars, intellectuals, and activists undermined, or future work derailed. Third, we know, respect, and like Dr. Peikoff and Dr. McCaskey. We were surprised to learn of a conflict of this magnitude between them."

And then? Well, you will have to go to Noodlefood to find out.

[Brant Gaede]

Diana is in over her head and refuses to address the central issue, really, not Peikoff's moral judgment about McCaskey, but his ramming it down everyone's throat from his "intellectual status" if not his actual leverage over ARI and his toadies who pragmatically or ignorantly sold out to him for personal if not professional comfort places in the "Objectivist movement."

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Diana is in over her head and refuses to address the central issue, really, not Peikoff's moral judgment about McCaskey, but his ramming it down everyone's throat from his "intellectual status" if not his actual leverage over ARI and his toadies who pragmatically or ignorantly sold out to him for personal if not professional comfort places in the "Objectivist movement."

She poses sharp questions and uses effective rhetoric, I'd say. She ups the ante on Uncle Grandpa, that's for sure. He seems autistic by not answering her emails. Diana is DISAPPOINTED and promises "judgements" to come.

So, the ARI/OAC internal discussion will come out of the fog for a while, as we wait for the 'guidance' to be delivered Nov 8. Diana's questions will no doubt be at hand on that fateful day.

What criticisms by McCaskey did Peikoff find unacceptable -- and why? Does Peikoff regard his theory of induction as part of Objectivism -- and, if so, why?

Do the members of ARI's Board think that Peikoff's e-mail was appropriate in its claims and demands? Did Peikoff offer them more detail about his objections to McCaskey's criticisms in prior communications?

Why did Peikoff morally condemn McCaskey, as opposed to merely thinking him mistaken? Why didn't Peikoff seek out McCaskey for a discussion of these matters?

What is Peikoff's relationship to ARI's Board? What would it mean for him to "go"? Might Peikoff (or his heirs) issue similar ultimatums in the future? If so, what will the ARI Board do, if it disagrees with the demand?

What does ARI regard as the limits of acceptable disagreement -- including the public or private expression thereof -- for people associated with the Institute in various capacities (e.g., as Board members, employees, OAC students, grant recipients, OCON speakers, campus club speakers, etc.)? What is Anthem's view of those limits?

What else has happened here that we don't yet know but that might affect our judgments?

We hope that these questions will be answered someday, preferably sooner rather than later. However, perhaps those who know the answers have good reason to remain silent. We don't know.

[ . . . ]

Again, if anyone wishes to share relevant facts, whether anonymously or with attribution, we would be happy to update this post accordingly. Further comments from McCaskey, Peikoff, Harriman, and Brook are particularly welcome. You can e-mail us at diana@dianahsieh.com and paul@paulhsieh.com.

Edited October 12, 2010 by william.scherk

[PDS]

I think DH and PH deserve credit for the way have approached this. DH in particular was expected by some to be one of the "toadies" described by Brant, and those with such expectations were wrong, in this instance.

Edited October 12, 2010 by PDS

[william.scherk]

John McCaskey has added a comment to a thread following his Amazon review:

Andrew Layman writes, "This review is unhelpful because McCaskey .

. . omits nearly all of of the essentials of a good review."

My remarks do omit what would be essential to a comprehensive book

review. But this is a nice thing about a bookstore's bulletin

board: The contributions do not all need to stand alone as full

reviews. I limited my contribution to something I happen to know a

lot about and something I thought would help potential buyers

decide whether to read the book and if so, how to get the most out

of doing so. Since I wasn't providing a comprehensive review, I

picked the neutral 3-star rating.

I also noticed several other reviewers were commenting on the

theory of induction presented in the book's first chapter rather

than that theory's illustrations presented in the remaining

chapters. I found several of those reviews helpful. But even if

that first chapter is momentous, it's virtually a transcription of

lectures given by someone other than the book's named author. It

doesn't seem fair to rate a book primarily for the part the author

didn't write.

That many of the book's philosophical elements are unconventional

is plain enough. The author and publicists make a point of it. But

that some of the historical accounts are also unconventional will

not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the field. I wanted, in my

limited remarks, to let readers and potential readers know this was

the case. I hoped bookstore patrons would find that helpful. I see

many did.

I also hope many buy the book -- and it looks like they are doing

so. In the store's Epistemology section, the book is right now at #

14, just behind Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Congratulations to the author!

My thanks to Andrew Layman, Mike999, and the others for

contributing to the discussion.

Regards, John

[George H. Smith]

My favorite part of the article is this passage from an email that David Harriman wrote to Paul Hsieh:

"Professor McCaskey has published a negative review of my book on Amazon. He has also published articles expressing some of his own views on induction, and praising the ideas of William Whewell (a 19th century Kantian)."

McCaskey likes what a supposed Kantian had to say about induction. Need any more be said to condemn him?

The article, though useful as a summary of the controversy to date, is pathetic in a way. I am thinking in particular about the concern of whether Peikoff's theory of induction qualifies as an official part of Objectivism, and the query about the proper limits of dissent among Objectivists. How sad.

Ghs

[PDS]

My favorite part of the article is this passage from an email that David Harriman wrote to Paul Hsieh:

"Professor McCaskey has published a negative review of my book on Amazon. He has also published articles expressing some of his own views on induction, and praising the ideas of William Whewell (a 19th century Kantian)."

McCaskey likes what a supposed Kantian had to say about induction. Need any more be said to condemn him?

The article, though useful as a summary of the controversy to date, is pathetic in a way. I am thinking in particular about the concern of whether Peikoff's theory of induction qualifies as an official part of Objectivism, and the query about the proper limits of dissent among Objectivists. How sad.

Ghs

Someone once said that Objectivism is a closed system, ergo, Peikoff's theory of induction cannot qualify as an official part of Objectivism. QED. As such, this entire kerfuffle doesn't even involve Objectivism...it involves what the legal heir of Ayn Rand thinks of what others think of his theory about something that isn't a part of Objectivism. Now that's pathetic.

[BaalChatzaf]

My favorite part of the article is this passage from an email that David Harriman wrote to Paul Hsieh:

"Professor McCaskey has published a negative review of my book on Amazon. He has also published articles expressing some of his own views on induction, and praising the ideas of William Whewell (a 19th century Kantian)."

McCaskey likes what a supposed Kantian had to say about induction. Need any more be said to condemn him?

The article, though useful as a summary of the controversy to date, is pathetic in a way. I am thinking in particular about the concern of whether Peikoff's theory of induction qualifies as an official part of Objectivism, and the query about the proper limits of dissent among Objectivists. How sad.

Ghs

Whewell had several points of disagreement with Kant.

See: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4176/1/Kant-Whewell.pdf

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

My favorite part of the article is this passage from an email that David Harriman wrote to Paul Hsieh:

"Professor McCaskey has published a negative review of my book on Amazon. He has also published articles expressing some of his own views on induction, and praising the ideas of William Whewell (a 19th century Kantian)."

McCaskey likes what a supposed Kantian had to say about induction. Need any more be said to condemn him?

The article, though useful as a summary of the controversy to date, is pathetic in a way. I am thinking in particular about the concern of whether Peikoff's theory of induction qualifies as an official part of Objectivism, and the query about the proper limits of dissent among Objectivists. How sad.

Ghs

Someone once said that Objectivism is a closed system, ergo, Peikoff's theory of induction cannot qualify as an official part of Objectivism. QED. As such, this entire kerfuffle doesn't even involve Objectivism...it involves what the legal heir of Ayn Rand thinks of what others think of his theory about something that isn't a part of Objectivism. Now that's pathetic.

I recall several statements by Rand where she expressly stated that Objectivism consists entirely and exclusively of her ideas (and ideas published with her sanction). By this standard, you are correct; Objectivism became "closed" after her death, and Peikoff has no business presenting his own ideas as part of Objectivism. He tries to get around this by presenting himself as Rand's "intellectual heir," which presumably qualifies him to channel Rand's thoughts, or at least her approval, from the grave.

Btw, I have seen "kerfuffle" used more often on OL during the past few days than I have during the rest of my life. Have we been invaded by Brits?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, Diana may come to letting the other shoe drop. When and if that happens we'll hear about it. I personally don't think she'll be able to deal with Peikoff's solid rot and will let the whole issue evaporate over time with the calculation she'll be around a lot longer than he will especially respecting ARI and what it does and who will do its doing.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Yes, Diana may come to letting the other shoe drop. When and if that happens we'll hear about it. I personally don't think she'll be able to deal with Peikoff's solid rot and will let the whole issue evaporate over time with the calculation she'll be around a lot longer than he will especially respecting ARI and what it does and who will do its doing.

--Brant

My impression of Diana Hsieh is that she is far too calculating to take any stand that will endanger her relationship with ARI.

Ghs

[PDS]

My favorite part of the article is this passage from an email that David Harriman wrote to Paul Hsieh:

"Professor McCaskey has published a negative review of my book on Amazon. He has also published articles expressing some of his own views on induction, and praising the ideas of William Whewell (a 19th century Kantian)."

McCaskey likes what a supposed Kantian had to say about induction. Need any more be said to condemn him?

The article, though useful as a summary of the controversy to date, is pathetic in a way. I am thinking in particular about the concern of whether Peikoff's theory of induction qualifies as an official part of Objectivism, and the query about the proper limits of dissent among Objectivists. How sad.

Ghs

Someone once said that Objectivism is a closed system, ergo, Peikoff's theory of induction cannot qualify as an official part of Objectivism. QED. As such, this entire kerfuffle doesn't even involve Objectivism...it involves what the legal heir of Ayn Rand thinks of what others think of his theory about something that isn't a part of Objectivism. Now that's pathetic.

I recall several statements by Rand where she expressly stated that Objectivism consists entirely and exclusively of her ideas (and ideas published with her sanction). By this standard, you are correct; Objectivism became "closed" after her death, and Peikoff has no business presenting his own ideas as part of Objectivism. He tries to get around this by presenting himself as Rand's "intellectual heir," which presumably qualifies him to channel Rand's thoughts, or at least her approval, from the grave.

Btw, I have seen "kerfuffle" used more often on OL during the past few days than I have during the rest of my life. Have we been invaded by Brits?

Ghs

I assure you, sir, I am no Brit. I thought kerfuffle was a recently invented term. By-the-by, wouldn't it be great if the internet had a search engine of some type that would allow me to simply punch in the word "kerfuffle" and then have a bunch of references pop up on the screen? I would then have some idea of what I'm talking about. Damn, my head is full of ideas some days...

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, Diana may come to letting the other shoe drop. When and if that happens we'll hear about it. I personally don't think she'll be able to deal with Peikoff's solid rot and will let the whole issue evaporate over time with the calculation she'll be around a lot longer than he will especially respecting ARI and what it does and who will do its doing.

--Brant

My impression of Diana Hsieh is that she is far too calculating to take any stand that will endanger her relationship with ARI.

Ghs

Considering she felt welcome to damn Nathaniel Branden all to hell simply by reading and not liking his "Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand," which was simply part of her quest for Orthodox virginity scheme, "calculating" is just what it is. Same, same, shame, shame, for the way she treated Chris Sciabarra on SOLOP four and a half years ago.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

The entire email from David Harriman to Paul Hsieh deserves to be reproduced here:

Date: Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 1:30 PM

From: DAVID HARRIMAN

To: Paul Hsieh

Subject: Re: Question about McCaskey's criticisms of your book?

Dear Paul:

I don't think you need access to private emails in order to reach a judgment on this conflict.

Professor McCaskey has published a negative review of my book on Amazon. He has also published articles expressing some of his own views on induction, and praising the ideas of William Whewell (a 19th century Kantian). Anyone who is interested can read my book, read the writings of McCaskey, and come to their own judgment.

I realize that most people know little about the history of science, and so they may believe that they lack the specialized knowledge required to make a judgment in this case. But I do not think the basic issues are very complicated.

McCaskey claims that Galileo discovered the law of free fall without even understanding what is meant by "free fall" (since Galileo allegedly had no clear concept of friction). Likewise, Newton discovered his universal laws of motion without understanding the concepts of "inertia," "acceleration," and "momentum." In effect, scientists stumble around in the dark and somehow discover laws of nature before they grasp the constituent concepts. This view is typical of academic philosophers of science today. I am well acquainted with it; in my youth, I took courses from Paul Feyerabend at UC Berkeley. But how believable is it?

In short, I ask you which is more believable -- that Isaac Newton was fundamentally confused about the difference between "impetus" and "momentum," or that John McCaskey is confused about this issue?

A favorite pastime among academics today is to find "feet of clay" in great men. But that is not the purpose of my book.

Sincerely,

David

Harriman has been Peikoff's protégé for so long that his master's arrogance, misleading rhetoric, and shoddy argumentation have become second nature to him.

So he equates John McCaskey with any old "academic philosopher of science," and, by the transitivity of equality, with the late Paul Feyerabend.

And he equates an analysis of Isaac Newton's thinking of which he does not approve with finding "feet of clay" in Isaac Newton. Which, by a further equivalence that is palpable though unstated, implies that putting forth an analysis of Isaac Newton's thinking of which he does not approve is the equivalent of finding "feet of clay" in Ayn Rand.

And not just Ayn Rand, come to think of it, but her faithful servant Leonard Peikoff, and his faithful servant ... need we say more?

Harriman deserves to see this email reprinted on the back cover of his book.

Robert Campbell

[George H. Smith]

Btw, I have seen "kerfuffle" used more often on OL during the past few days than I have during the rest of my life. Have we been invaded by Brits?

I assure you, sir, I am no Brit. I thought kerfuffle was a recently invented term. By-the-by, wouldn't it be great if the internet had a search engine of some type that would allow me to simply punch in the word "kerfuffle" and then have a bunch of references pop up on the screen? I would then have some idea of what I'm talking about. Damn, my head is full of ideas some days...

I think Bill Scherk used "kerfuffle" a couple times recently. I wasn't familiar with the word until then, so I had to look it up. Its origin is apparently Scottish Gaelic.

Ghs

[Xray]

I assure you, sir, I am no Brit. I thought kerfuffle was a recently invented term. By-the-by, wouldn't it be great if the internet had a search engine of some type that would allow me to simply punch in the word "kerfuffle" and then have a bunch of references pop up on the screen? I would then have some idea of what I'm talking about. Damn, my head is full of ideas some days...

I first came across the term "kerfuffle" by an Canadian internet correspondent of Scottish/Irish origin who used it.

It seems to be quite old actually:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kerfuffle

kerfuffle, carfuffle, kurfuffle [kəˈfʌfəl]

n

Informal chiefly Brit commotion; disorder; agitation

vb

(tr) Scot to put into disorder or disarray; ruffle or disarrange

[from Scottish curfuffle, carfuffle, from Scottish Gaelic car twist, turn + fuffle to disarrange]

Someone once said that Objectivism is a closed system, ergo, Peikoff's theory of induction cannot qualify as an official part of Objectivism. QED. As such, this entire kerfuffle doesn't even involve Objectivism...it involves what the legal heir of Ayn Rand thinks of what others think of his theory about something that isn't a part of Objectivism. Now that's pathetic.

This excellent argumentation of yours would certainly get Peikoff in a corner, for it uses turns Objectism's own closedness against himself (LP who sees himself as the grailkeeper of the pure doctrine). Your argument puts Peikoff checkmate by using his own weapons, so to speak.

George H. Smith By this standard, you are correct; Objectivism became "closed" after her death, and Peikoff has no business presenting his own ideas as part of Objectivism. He tries to get around this by presenting himself as Rand's "intellectual heir," which presumably qualifies him to channel Rand's thoughts, or at least her approval, from the grave.

Nathaniel Branden on the closedness of Objectivism:

"The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" http://www.nathaniel...nd_hazards.html

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." (NB)

Can you think of any closed philosophical system which has survived?

Imo such systems disregard the vita in motu principle, and ignore the creative potential of "patchwork philosophy".

Edited October 12, 2010 by Xray