New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Oh to be a fly-on-the wall for today's conference call!

It seems it happened last week, and there was dirty work afoot. Meet the newest unperson:

http://blog.shealevy.com/2010/11/07/my-treatment-in-last-tuesdays-oac-call/

A couple of the comments suggest that Comrade Sonia has also been unpersoned.

It's quite literally like the game of telephone. I bet a recording will emerge, and become available through backchannels.

All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again...

Jim

[Rich Engle]

Oh to be a fly-on-the wall for today's conference call!

It seems it happened last week, and there was dirty work afoot. Meet the newest unperson:

http://blog.shealevy...sdays-oac-call/

A couple of the comments suggest that Comrade Sonia has also been unpersoned.

It's quite literally like the game of telephone. I bet a recording will emerge, and become available through backchannels.

Anyone that has a decent level of organizational experience can smell this sickness. Pseudo-elite, arrogant cultishness.

It was never supposed to be this way, and it is not going to be this way. This is severe warpage. Oh, there is some major back-scrambling going on. I'm guessing it is something far more pedestrian than trying to align the future of Objectivism so it can save the world. More like when families start pre-fighting over an estate before someone croaks off; maybe along that line. It is something venal. I would like to shuck it off as just ivory-tower monkey business, but it stinks of more evil than that.

And this is where it will take care of itself. It is too minor of an infection to be able to go systemic. Can you imagine trying to even explain this crap to a normal human? And you know, for the most part, they would get it, because this is no less base than anything your average Joe runs into out there. The worst part would be them looking at you and wondering why you spent so much time getting to know all that crap. Quack-quack--if it sounds like a duck, if it walks like a duck, it's very likely a damn duck.

I'm starting to think that if you really don't like this, the best thing to do is encourage it; it will die, rot, and fall, and that will be a very healthy thing, indeed.

As far as Hsieh possibly going up next on the block, well . . .if that is so (and there would be absolutely no surprise there) apparently she is not quite so good a chess player as she thinks she is. That would be quite a reality check, now, wouldn't it? Throw in with thieves, get robbed.

Personally, I find this all to be a very good thing. I can hardly wait for the end-run attempts. Hint: Follow The Money.

rde

Edited November 8, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Brant Gaede]

Oh to be a fly-on-the wall for today's conference call!

It seems it happened last week, and there was dirty work afoot. Meet the newest unperson:

http://blog.shealevy...sdays-oac-call/

A couple of the comments suggest that Comrade Sonia has also been unpersoned.

It's quite literally like the game of telephone. I bet a recording will emerge, and become available through backchannels.

It's obvious what the problem is: nobody gets to evaluate Leonard Peikoff. The doners might, anyway.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

Can you imagine trying to even explain this crap to a normal human?

Wait, are you implying that I am not . . .

[anthony]

In my view, we're seeing what happens when rationality loses touch with common sense; judgement loses touch with benefit of the doubt and benevolence; and virtues lose touch with character.

Non-integration by some top-most Objectivist intellectuals!

It is heartening to see students elicit clear and independent thinking.

That's the spirit.

Tony

[kiaer.ts]

In my view, we're seeing what happens when rationality loses touch with common sense; judgement loses touch with benefit of the doubt and benevolence; and virtues lose touch with character.

Non-integration by some top-most Objectivist intellectuals!

It is heartening to see students elicit clear and independent thinking.

That's the spirit.

Tony

You are way too generous. This has always been about controlling other people, with secrecy pledges and loyalty oaths and ostracisms. That has been the norm for decades. The problem is that the occasional sacrifices have been done only at safe intervals. Think about the Onlies in the Star Trek episode Miri. They think that the disease that sends their friends into ostracism and oblivion only happens to some people because it only happens occasionally. But the truth is that the inner circle all have the disease, and unless they leave voluntarily they are all going to come down with a full blown case of irrevocable repudiation sooner or later.

No one can be consistently evil. But some people are evil, and the fact that they can dance a jig or kiss a baby or make a good speech by reading a teleprompter, or control the income of an estate doesn't make them good. The central focus of Peikoff and his sycophants for fourty years has been maintaining control. Producing new work has always come second. That's why an open system is a threat. That's why Kelley and Reisman are threats. They don't rely on or submit to control.

This has never been about a conflict between virtue and vice. Vice has been in control for a long, long time.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Ted Keer

[anthony]

In my view, we're seeing what happens when rationality loses touch with common sense; judgement loses touch with benefit of the doubt and benevolence; and virtues lose touch with character.

Non-integration by some top-most Objectivist intellectuals!

It is heartening to see students elicit clear and independent thinking.

That's the spirit.

Tony

You are way too generous. This has always been about controlling other people, with secrecy pledges and loyalty oaths and ostracisms. That has been the norm for decades. The problem is that the occasional sacrifices have been done only at safe intervals. Think about the Onlies in the Star Trek episode Miri. They think that the disease that sends their friends into ostracism and oblivion only happens to some people because it only happens occasionally. But the truth is that the inner circle all have the disease, and unless they leave voluntarily they are all going to come down with a full blown case of irrevocable repudiation sooner or later.

No one can be consistently evil. But some people are evil, and the fact that they can dance a jig or kiss a baby or make a good speech by reading a teleprompter, or control the income of an estate doesn't make them good. The central focus of Peikoff and his sycophants for fourty years has been maintaining control. Producing new work has always come second. That's why an open system is a threat. That's why Kelley and Reisman are threats. They don't rely on or submit to control.

This has never been about a conflict between virtue and vice. Vice has been in control for a long, long time.

Ted,

Well, god knows I've read plenty at OL about ARI in the last year or two, so don't have any excuse for being over generous.

I suppose I continued to assume that ARI's leading lights commited such strange actions in over-exuberance as 'keepers of the flame'.

But I suppose you're right, and I must accept this. It is sad to eventually have to withdraw all good will.

A slow dawning on me that is probably "well, duh!" to you.

It does make sense of what I heard Nathaniel Branden respond in an interview of perhaps 3 years ago, when questioned about Peikoff:

"Poor Leonard..." he said. Now, I guess, he was being kind.

Edited November 9, 2010 by whYNOT

[James Heaps-Nelson]

In my view, we're seeing what happens when rationality loses touch with common sense; judgement loses touch with benefit of the doubt and benevolence; and virtues lose touch with character.

Non-integration by some top-most Objectivist intellectuals!

It is heartening to see students elicit clear and independent thinking.

That's the spirit.

Tony

You are way too generous. This has always been about controlling other people, with secrecy pledges and loyalty oaths and ostracisms. That has been the norm for decades. The problem is that the occasional sacrifices have been done only at safe intervals. Think about the Onlies in the Star Trek episode Miri. They think that the disease that sends their friends into ostracism and oblivion only happens to some people because it only happens occasionally. But the truth is that the inner circle all have the disease, and unless they leave voluntarily they are all going to come down with a full blown case of irrevocable repudiation sooner or later.

No one can be consistently evil. But some people are evil, and the fact that they can dance a jig or kiss a baby or make a good speech by reading a teleprompter, or control the income of an estate doesn't make them good. The central focus of Peikoff and his sycophants for fourty years has been maintaining control. Producing new work has always come second. That's why an open system is a threat. That's why Kelley and Reisman are threats. They don't rely on or submit to control.

This has never been about a conflict between virtue and vice. Vice has been in control for a long, long time.

Ted,

That's part of it, although I think a lot of it involves compartmentalization. I think most Orthodox O'ists really do want to do right in most situations. However, when you deal with a highly abstract system and a highly invested psychological need to be right, whatever is right can easily turn into whatever can be justified.

Jim

[Rich Engle]

Can you imagine trying to even explain this crap to a normal human?

Wait, are you implying that I am not . . .

In this respect, no. None of us. Ever try explaining the nuances of the whole O- and OL experience to people at a cocktail party? Instant mutant status--go to the corner, be quiet and pick at your appetizers.

I feel the need to take a moment and talk about how totally hot Yeoman Rand (note irony)/Grace Lee Whitney was in the episode Ted mentions, (and all the other episodes where she appeared). Can you believe she is 80 now?

Anyway, yes: secret oaths, un-personing, revisionist history by omission, propaganda moves--doesn't really put them in much of a position to criticize other whacky elite groups (ex., Scientology). Very creepy-crawly. The Bilderberg Club of the philosophical world, without the clout.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Rich Engle

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Can you imagine trying to even explain this crap to a normal human?

Wait, are you implying that I am not . . .

In this respect, no. None of us. Ever try explaining the nuances of the whole O- and OL experience to people at a cocktail party? Instant mutant status--go to the corner, be quiet and pick at your appetizers.

Rich,

The people at the cocktail party have a sickness too. Their experience consists of only the ordinary and the respectable or the fashionably avant-garde. Objectivism only becomes a problem when the initial excitement of paradigm shift fades into settling for hardened dogma.

Jim

[Rich Engle]

Can you imagine trying to even explain this crap to a normal human?

Wait, are you implying that I am not . . .

In this respect, no. None of us. Ever try explaining the nuances of the whole O- and OL experience to people at a cocktail party? Instant mutant status--go to the corner, be quiet and pick at your appetizers.

Rich,

The people at the cocktail party have a sickness too. Their experience consists of only the ordinary and the respectable or the fashionably avant-garde. Objectivism only becomes a problem when the initial excitement of paradigm shift fades into settling for hardened dogma.

Jim

Oh, I do agree. And let me be clear--when I mention sickness I am referring to what is oozing down from the ARI. The cocktail party thing--just saying you can get some very strange reactions, even among the very highly-educated. Once in awhile I find Rand admirers, mostly through having read Atlas. When with academics, I have usually found the typical Rand-haters. But I don't hang out in those circles much anymore. This is SW Florida--no cocktail parties for me. The parties here involve 16oz. Natural Ice, cheap cigarettes, and per-tater chips. Top hobbies: fishing, knife-fighting, and crack. I stay inside a lot.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Xray]

"There is no room for the arbitrary in any activty of man ..." (Rand).

Oh, but there is. Plenty.

As for Rand's assertion that "nature forbids him [man] the irrational" -

L.A. Rollins commented in his book The Myth of Natural Rights, p. 20:

"In fact nature permits a helluva lot of of irrationality. How for example, could Christianity have survived for nearly two millenia if nature "forbids" the irrational?"

Ahh Ms. Xray, you non-believers and your book sources are just blind to the obvious answer.

Christianity survived and prospered because they have God on their side. Clear as the stars overhead.

You sound like you really believe what you say about "God on their side".

Add a healthy dose of Roman military power and the accumulation of property and wealth in the Vatican and the answer is obvious. Your book source just demonstrates his ignorance.

Even without coercion, countless humans adhere to irrational beliefs, philosophies, superstitions, etc. Just think of the many who believe in horoscopes.

It looks like nature does not forbid the irrational at all. The irrational is even a crucial element in a very natural issue: the biological program of choosing a mate. For example, when people fall in love, critical rational judgement is mostly blocked out in their brains, and they idealize the other person.

If people approached mate choosing in a rational way, my guess is mankind would be extinct by now. ;)

Edited November 9, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

If people approached mate choosing in a rational way, my guess is mankind would be extinct by now. ;)

So, your efforts correcting this problem are motivated by environmental extremism?

--Brant

man qua woman qua woman qua man

Edited November 10, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

Oh to be a fly-on-the wall for today's conference call!

Apparently someone recorded it and is willing to provide an mp3 file of it:

link

Ellen

[Selene]

Oh to be a fly-on-the wall for today's conference call!

Apparently someone recorded it and is willing to provide an mp3 file of it:

link

Ellen

Ellen:

Out of curiosity Ellen, do you know if that person disclosed that were recording the call?

I have not had time to listen or read it yet.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Does anyone here have the mp3? Please email me thru OL if you can send a copy.

[william.scherk]

Oh to be a fly-on-the wall for today's conference call!

Apparently someone recorded it and is willing to provide an mp3 file of it:

link

That is interesting. I wonder if this November 2nd meeting/session was what had been advised/advertized as the November 8th 'guidance' session.

I also wonder at the idea that the 'contents' of the session are covered under standard confidentiality agreements, as several folks on Noodlefood and at SOLO (OAC Student Mike Mazza) have argued.

It struck me that this is kind of like a private course of instruction the 'trade secrets' of which are confidential, or proprietary. Like with a technical course in electrical engineering, the class notes belong to the teacher, the copyright in the instructional material belongs to its authors, and the 'unique' message that the student paid good money for is also covered under that kind of agreement.

But what I don't get is how a OAC student/attendee/customer can be held to an even tougher standard: the customer may not say what was said at the guidance session, and may not paraphrase . . . nor identify a speaker. He is seemingly thwarted from saying something like "we learned about transistors. My instructor showed us how this was the key to the entire modern world of electronics."

If I understand Mike Mazza correctly, the no-talking on topic rule is forced by the form of the contract between OAC and its students.

You may learn, but you are going to be hard pressed when you get home and folks ask, "So. Big guidance class today, huh? What did you learn? What was it all about? What was the bottom line, or the message?"

The poor customer of OAC seems bound to say, "I can't tell you what I was taught, or just how I learned it, but I can give you general impressions of what I now believe may be the ARI position."

It seems crazy. Does anyone else understand these confidentiality strictures in a different light?

[kiaer.ts]

Oh to be a fly-on-the wall for today's conference call!

Apparently someone recorded it and is willing to provide an mp3 file of it:

link

That is interesting. I wonder if this November 2nd meeting/session was what had been advised/advertized as the November 8th 'guidance' session.

I also wonder at the idea that the 'contents' of the session are covered under standard confidentiality agreements, as several folks on Noodlefood and at SOLO (OAC Student Mike Mazza) have argued.

It struck me that this is kind of like a private course of instruction the 'trade secrets' of which are confidential, or proprietary. Like with a technical course in electrical engineering, the class notes belong to the teacher, the copyright in the instructional material belongs to its authors, and the 'unique' message that the student paid good money for is also covered under that kind of agreement.

But what I don't get is how a OAC student/attendee/customer can be held to an even tougher standard: the customer may not say what was said at the guidance session, and may not paraphrase . . . nor identify a speaker. He is seemingly thwarted from saying something like "we learned about transistors. My instructor showed us how this was the key to the entire modern world of electronics."

If I understand Mike Mazza correctly, the no-talking on topic rule is forced by the form of the contract between OAC and its students.

You may learn, but you are going to be hard pressed when you get home and folks ask, "So. Big guidance class today, huh? What did you learn? What was it all about? What was the bottom line, or the message?"

The poor customer of OAC seems bound to say, "I can't tell you what I was taught, or just how I learned it, but I can give you general impressions of what I now believe may be the ARI position."

It seems crazy. Does anyone else understand these confidentiality strictures in a different light?

I am not a lawyer.

But confidentiality agreements are not binding on third parties. The purpose of secrecy is to maintain as secret what is otherwise communicable - if there were some legal instrument available, there would be little purpose in going to such lengths. One could sue for damages, but what would be the damages here? Is the reason why people should consent to McCaskey being treated like a pariah a trade secret? Do Objectionists have some superior and marketable method of acting like assholes towards people? Is McCaskey not the damaged party here? Copyright adheres in original works. But does it adhere in slanders and libels and tendentious justifications for slanders and liable? And is not communication of the essence of this argument a paradigm example of fair use?

[Selene]

Actually, this flirts on "wiretapping." I will have to look up the statute/case law. I know that the position/location of the taper is important for jurisdictional reasons. That was what essentially "tripped up" Linda Tripp.

"Indictment by the State of Maryland Tripp was a resident of Columbia, Maryland at the time she made her surreptitious recordings of the conversations with Lewinsky, and 49 Democrats in the Maryland Legislature signed a letter to the state prosecutor demanding that Tripp be prosecuted under Maryland's wiretap law.^[8] Prior to trial, the state court ruled that, due to the immunity agreements which the Independent Counsel's office entered into with Tripp, Lewinsky, and others, a substantial amount of the evidence which the prosecution intended to use was inadmissible. At a pre-trial hearing the prosecution called Lewinsky as a witness to try to establish that her testimony against Tripp was untainted by the Independent Counsel investigation. However, the Maryland state court ruled that Lewinsky, who "admitted that she lied under oath in a federal proceeding and has stated that lying has been a part of her life," was not credible and Lewinsky's proposed testimony against Tripp was "bathed in impermissible taint." As a result, all charges against Tripp were dismissed on May 26, 2000 when the prosecution decided not to proceed with the trial of the case."

[kiaer.ts]

Actually, this flirts on "wiretapping." I will have to look up the statute/case law. I know that the position/location of the taper is important for jurisdictional reasons. That was what essentially "tripped up" Linda Tripp.

"Indictment by the State of Maryland Tripp was a resident of Columbia, Maryland at the time she made her surreptitious recordings of the conversations with Lewinsky, and 49 Democrats in the Maryland Legislature signed a letter to the state prosecutor demanding that Tripp be prosecuted under Maryland's wiretap law.^[8] Prior to trial, the state court ruled that, due to the immunity agreements which the Independent Counsel's office entered into with Tripp, Lewinsky, and others, a substantial amount of the evidence which the prosecution intended to use was inadmissible. At a pre-trial hearing the prosecution called Lewinsky as a witness to try to establish that her testimony against Tripp was untainted by the Independent Counsel investigation. However, the Maryland state court ruled that Lewinsky, who "admitted that she lied under oath in a federal proceeding and has stated that lying has been a part of her life," was not credible and Lewinsky's proposed testimony against Tripp was "bathed in impermissible taint." As a result, all charges against Tripp were dismissed on May 26, 2000 when the prosecution decided not to proceed with the trial of the case."

How does that put a burden on a third party?

[Selene]

Actually, this flirts on "wiretapping." I will have to look up the statute/case law. I know that the position/location of the taper is important for jurisdictional reasons. That was what essentially "tripped up" Linda Tripp.

"Indictment by the State of Maryland Tripp was a resident of Columbia, Maryland at the time she made her surreptitious recordings of the conversations with Lewinsky, and 49 Democrats in the Maryland Legislature signed a letter to the state prosecutor demanding that Tripp be prosecuted under Maryland's wiretap law.^[8] Prior to trial, the state court ruled that, due to the immunity agreements which the Independent Counsel's office entered into with Tripp, Lewinsky, and others, a substantial amount of the evidence which the prosecution intended to use was inadmissible. At a pre-trial hearing the prosecution called Lewinsky as a witness to try to establish that her testimony against Tripp was untainted by the Independent Counsel investigation. However, the Maryland state court ruled that Lewinsky, who "admitted that she lied under oath in a federal proceeding and has stated that lying has been a part of her life," was not credible and Lewinsky's proposed testimony against Tripp was "bathed in impermissible taint." As a result, all charges against Tripp were dismissed on May 26, 2000 when the prosecution decided not to proceed with the trial of the case."

How does that put a burden on a third party?

I'm not clear what you mean by this question Ted.

[kiaer.ts]

Actually, this flirts on "wiretapping." I will have to look up the statute/case law. I know that the position/location of the taper is important for jurisdictional reasons. That was what essentially "tripped up" Linda Tripp.

"Indictment by the State of Maryland Tripp was a resident of Columbia, Maryland at the time she made her surreptitious recordings of the conversations with Lewinsky, and 49 Democrats in the Maryland Legislature signed a letter to the state prosecutor demanding that Tripp be prosecuted under Maryland's wiretap law.^[8] Prior to trial, the state court ruled that, due to the immunity agreements which the Independent Counsel's office entered into with Tripp, Lewinsky, and others, a substantial amount of the evidence which the prosecution intended to use was inadmissible. At a pre-trial hearing the prosecution called Lewinsky as a witness to try to establish that her testimony against Tripp was untainted by the Independent Counsel investigation. However, the Maryland state court ruled that Lewinsky, who "admitted that she lied under oath in a federal proceeding and has stated that lying has been a part of her life," was not credible and Lewinsky's proposed testimony against Tripp was "bathed in impermissible taint." As a result, all charges against Tripp were dismissed on May 26, 2000 when the prosecution decided not to proceed with the trial of the case."

How does that put a burden on a third party?

I'm not clear what you mean by this question Ted.

Wiretap or breach of contract might apply to a party to that call. In what way are third parties who come into possession of this material or communicate it in any legal jeopardy?

[Selene]

Ted:

That is a hell of a good question.

It is also a federal crime to "endeavor to knowingly disclose illegally intercepted information."

Most states have similar statutes, and even when it is not a federal crime, wiretapping/and or electronic eavesdropping by anyone other than the police is a state crime, (under mens rea requirements that vary from state to state) when done without the consent of all parties to the conversation in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/98-327.pdf <<< This is from the Congressional Research Service - Library of Congress - the list you and I are interested in is on the bottom of CRS-2 and the top of CRS-3.

Excellent question,

Adam

[Rich Engle]

It just needs to be quietly leaked out and made viral. Oops, I didn't say that.

rde

There's no crying in baseball.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Oh to be a fly-on-the wall for today's conference call!

Apparently someone recorded it and is willing to provide an mp3 file of it:

link

Ellen

Ellen:

Out of curiosity Ellen, do you know if that person disclosed that were recording the call?

I have no idea. All I "know" is the post I linked -- plus a few following replies (recheck the link to see those) with one poster hotly denying that he was the person who did it.

I can't deny that I'm curious about the details of what happened. On the other hand, I don't know about the legalities. Besides which, I wouldn't go to the bother of messing around with the technical issues even if I felt comfortable about the recording. (My email, etc., time is too limited to bother with something like that.)

Ellen

EDIT PS: I don't see any moral problem in revealing what was said. Instead, I see a moral problem in asking that what was said not be revealed. The whole proceeding is offensive beyond belief to any standards of academic discourse. However, recording without permission is iffy, seems to me, however ridiculous the "confidentiality" strictures.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle