Hmmmmm...

That's good to know...

Michael

You cannot edit posts that have been replied to.

--Brant

Casey,

Ditto.

Michael

... on our own petard, Michael?

Pardon me for a bit of boistrous good cheer.

(Folks, pardon me, it's a long story!)

By the way, Michael, best to you for the holidays, and hatchet buried for the moment. No kidding.

Casey

I dearly apologize.

What a slip! I am correcting Ms. Packer's name in the other post right away.

Thank you, Jason.

Michael

EDIT - Now this is strange. I can edit posts from way before that one, but I cannot edit that one, which I only made a couple of hours ago. HELOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Tech support!!! What happened?

Just so everyone has it right -- her name is Edith Packer.

- Jason

That's quite a bit of psychologizing without a shred of evidence.

The letters show that some people didn't like Ms. Packard. That's about it.

That means she was an ass? (That statement says a lot about the poster and nothing about her.) I have heard the contrary from several quarters - that she was a wonderful lady.

This particular interpretation of history is pure crap, especially in light of what transpired with the magnificent Capitalism book.

(It was probably all the Brandens' fault anyway... //;-)

Michael

Casey,

Not knowing the principals well or the issues involved, I reserve my own judgment on this issue, but, you're right, no one has articulated a moral or ideological reason not to carry Reisman's book.

"Shayne, I would take your arguments more seriously if you could name one real organization, where a professional attacked the skills, honesty, and integrity of its Chairman and their still associated with it."

This is exactly the sort of demand I don't take seriously. It's an expression of pure pragmatism. You start concerning yourself with principles and perhaps we'll talk, but I'm not interested in your quibbles over my recollection of the facts, particularly when you have no regard for principles, and I'm not interested in your assertions about the facts without references to back them up.

Casey,

This means a lot to me. I knew Linda Reardan and Jerry Kirkpatrick as well as the Reismans when I was in college in Southern California. They are terrific people.

Jim

Shayne, I would take your arguments more seriously if you could name one real organization, where a professional attacked the skills, honesty, and integrity of its Chairman and their still associated with it.

Just name one.

The bookstore, now dropping the context that it was a private business owned by schwartz shouldn't stop you. But you don't seem to know that Reisman and Packer pulled their products from him. The Jefferson School set up their own book service. Ayn Rand, Peikoff, Reisman, Packer, etc. products were sold through a small catalog predating the web site. They even offered "Tech support," you could pay per half hour and ask them questions over the phone.

Casey,
It's worth a great deal. Thank you for that statement, and the comment that accompanies it.

I think it sucks that Reisman's material isn't sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore. If it's not a philosophical difference, then WTF? This is obviously a petty result of some sort of power struggle. And this particular result of that power struggle, whatever that was about, crosses the line.

Glenn: The rationalization I'm referring to is your whole argument that it's OK to ostracize and ignore Reisman because of "irreconcilable differences". That would be a valid reason not to associate with Reisman on a personal level, a valid reason to take him off the board or other leadership positions, but it's not a valid reason to exclude his book from your bookstore, or ignore its merits in references, or not permit him to speak at conferences, etc.

But I think I made this clear enough already, and it's not exactly rocket science, so I really wonder why you're ignoring the main point and instead quibbling over some insignificant fact I may have gotten wrong, and going off on a tangent about who knows what.

Glenn: Exactly what facts did I get wrong here or anywhere, and exactly how is my getting them wrong relevant to the actual point I made, namely that as professional Objectivist philosophers and businessmen, they need to make decisions based on that standard not by the standard of "I personally don't like Edith Packer"?

And I don't understand your question about "scarce resources." Are you saying it takes significant resources to not ostracize Reisman and to list his book in a book catalog?

Shayne,

Are you saying Packer being a lawyer is a rationalization or
that she was one of the board members at the beginning is a rationalization?

She was taken off the board after a few months is a rationalization or that ARI's charter is in PA is a rationalization?

The Packer memo of September 27th is a rationalization or that she mislead Jerry about the law is a rationalization?

"It was Jerry Kirkpatrick who called the California law to Edith's attention[why would he be looking into this?], and he LATER informed Mike Berliner of the fact."
"No one knew at the time [Especially Packer, the lawyer on the original board of directors], including Mike Berliner and the ARI Board of Directors (Harry and Peter),[I guess by reading their minds]that the institute is a Pennsylvania corporation rather than a California corporation."

Shayne,

At least you admit to getting the facts wrong, again.

Instead of just "I've heard something" second hand, you should try reading Edith Packer's statements.

Packer & Reisman were not kicked off the board, wrong again.

ARI is private property,(the bookstore was a business until three years ago) why should scarce resources be spent on P&R?

Your whole arguement comes from a very collectivist view of the "movement."

Glenn,

I've heard that Packer nonsense before and it just flabbergasts me.

First of all, your comparing ARI to my private forum is absurd. The purposes and scale are just so totally different that it's just obvious grasping at straws on your part.

Regarding this rationalization for ARI (which has been floating around among ARI loyalists for quite some time): Keep in mind here that Packer & Reisman were not just kicked off the board (which could have been completely warranted), they were kicked out of the movement, and all of Reisman's work was subsequently ignored by ARI.

If two individuals get in a spat in private circumstances, I understand when they don't talk to each other anymore. But if it's two professionals, whose full-time job would be compromised if they didn't interact, I expect them to be able to set aside the squabble for the purposes of the work. And it is even more absurd that an Objectivist bookstore would not carry Reisman's book--that takes no interaction with Reisman at all.

This is just the height of pettiness, a complete breakdown of the principles that should govern the interaction of professionals. ARI's behavior here (if done for the reasons you suggest) is just high school silliness. Anyone who acts this way professionally deserves to be laughed at first and then sternly told to grow up.

I think it is odd that the people who don't like ARI's actions concerning Packard/Reisman, reserve the right to do it themselves. Linz and Shayne own their sites and set the rules, James and others (including myself) have supported this based on property rights.

ARI's full and only statement on this is: "Due to irreconcilable (non-philosophical) disagreements with ARI's Dirctors, Edith Packer and George Reisman have been asked to step down from the Institute's Board of Advisors." December 1993.

So its not "fantastic that Dr. Bernstein references Reisman."(they'd never carry works by Hayek)

The release of letters by P&R actually makes ARI's case. Packer was a pain in everyones ass. The original board was Peikoff, Snider, and Packer(she is a lawyer). She so annoyed Snider, Peikoff had to change the board within months of it being set up. She seemed to be in everyones business, read the P&R sactioned and released letters again for everyone complaining about her. Reisman loves his wife, so if ARI is not going to deal with her, he's leaving too.

The letters from Jerry and his wife Linda show what a giant ass Packard was. Packard is a lawyer and was an original Board member of ARI, so she knew that ARI is legally based in Pennsylvania. She sends her "friends" and therapy patients to harass Schwartz, Berliner, and others with what she knew to be the wrong rules.

She burned enough bridges that no one wanted to deal with her.

Greg:

I don't think anyone fully understands the issue. That's part of the issue.

But it's fantastic that Dr. Bernstein references Reisman (Incidentally, I ordered Bernstein's book last week). Maybe times are changing: It's a long-standing fact that ARI's bookstore (and its predecessor Second Renaissance) has not carried Reisman's book, though historically it had carried an number of other comparable works (I'm pretty sure they'd carried works by Hayek and/or Mises).

Shayne

A notion I've seen floated lately in discussions of ARI is that those affiliated with ARI won't/can't reference Reisman's works -- at least if they wish to continue being affiliated with ARI. Now, I don't fully understand the issue between Reisman and ARI, but I can report that in his wonderful Capitalist Manifesto, ARI's Bernstein prominently references and recommends Reisman's Capitalism.

I second Casey's compliments to Shayne, Jim and Jeff.

Thanks, guys!

Shayne, that goes for you, too.

Since Robert Bidinotto has proscribed any dealing with Rand biography from now on, however, I object to his approach. It does not meet that basic standard, especially since he has gone beyond proscribing his own investigation but elsewhere claimed that no one will be addressing it in TOC's magazine, as well. TOC has now entered into the hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil mode concerning this issue that ARI was accused of for 20 years -- the question is, which gods are they protecting from the truth? After ARI has been hit with that one for so long, the suspicion that TOC is protecting the reputation of the Brandens from the sunlight of the truth is only fair play, a bit of their own medicine -- karma, if you will. But also, hypocrisy, with the victim Ayn Rand's reputation. Think about it -- that's why the fact that this is off-limits suddenly, to The Objectivist Center of all places, has got to cause some headscratching. Who are they protecting is a natural enough question, and why is protecting them more important than objectivity itself, especially in regards to Ayn Rand? Surely, it's not because of a devotion to the IDEAS of Ayn Rand? That would certainly be ironic, since the issue involves her vindication on many historic points, as well as shedding light on her psychological insights. No, something else has taken priority, here. Not some purist devotion to Objectivist ideas...

You've both met my standard for toleration -- I find you and Jeff are knowledgable, honest and open-minded to new evidence. That's all I require, but I do require that.

Best,
Casey

Casey,

No offense taken. I've been through this before with Diana Hsieh and I've remained cordial with her. I hope the same is true with you and James V. Thanks for "tolerating" me this long .

Best,

Jim

No offense, guys, but I've been through these battles many times before and even though they are heated and pitched at the beginning by the end they always culminate in two kinds of white flags: 1) A pox on both their houses and who cares about TOC or ARI and 2) It's time to just move on. The last one, Jim, is particularly ironic -- ARI goes from being an ostrich with its head in the sand that will not brook any discussion of the Brandens and the biographical shadow they cast on Ayn Rand, whitewashing their "perfect" idol, to suddenly becoming a dog that just won't let go of that bone! That's quite an overnight transition...

James,

I need to go off and read your book now. I'm expecting some of the same kind of agony as when I read "Passion of Ayn Rand" and "Judgment Day" and I'll approach it with the same degree of skepticism. You're a good man, but there really is a statute of limitations on this kind of thing. The Brandens don't know it, Peikoff doesn't know it and many Objectivists never learn it. Being an Objectivist doesn't mean never having to say you're sorry.

One thing I can tell you from having been at TOC since 1994 with a hiatus from 2000-2003 to get married and do my factory startup at Intel is, your characterization of the organization as a Branden tolerating monster is untrue. I've spent some of the best weeks of my life there and little of it had to do with Nathaniel Branden although he's given some wonderful lectures and I've learned a terrific amount from reading his books on psychology.

Jim

James,
"The one group they never irritate: the Brandens."

I have little interest in defending TOC or ARI or any other Objectivist group, but I have to wonder where you get this stuff.

Why ignore the years of sponsoring a wide range of speakers on topics from Quantum Mechanics to Economics, just to get in these digs?

Maybe, just maybe, Kelley and other senior managers of TOC just don't think the issue is as important as you apparently do. Putting their stance down to sycophancy or fear of authority or some other ugly motive is simply foolish.

And, to be as clear as possible, I have little interest in whether TOC (or ARI or any other Objectivist group) survives or prospers. Rand's work continues to sell well and to be highly influential independently of these groups. (Though I acknowledge that both, and others, have some influence both positive and negative.)

Your objectivity could use a little burnishing.

Believe it not: Respectfully,
Jeff

Jim,

For the record, I had heard that story about "If," but I couldn't remember where. I just wanted to make sure.

Also, for the record, my own opinion is that The Passion of Ayn Rand is a magnificent achievement in its own right.

Other biographies can fill in holes, clarify details, correct mistakes, whatever. The portrait given of Ayn Rand as a genius with inner conflicts and peculiarities who took on the whole world and even challenged herself on her own shortcomings, coming out victorious in life (and death), is one of the most inspiring stories of real-life people I have ever read. The final part of Rand's influence on the world is the most fitting tribute any thinker could ever wish for.

On the personal reasons given in PAR for many of Rand's quirks and glories, they are Barbara's own take on Rand during 18 years of intimate living with her and over 200 interviews of people who knew her (and there is a huge archive of taped interviews to back this up).

Other biographies are coming. I put my money on the total vindication of Barbara and PAR regarding much of the mud slung at her in the last few months. That goes for Nathaniel Branden too.

Michael

Jim,

Would they draw the line at student groups associating with Nazis, I wonder? Where would they draw the line? What's "tolerant" about that sort of "tolerance"? "We all just know." Do we?! "That would be absurd." Yeah, but where is the damn line?

TOC is willing to lose the Blumenthals, willing to ignore new words from Rand herself, and even willing to ignore many in their own membership for the Brandens.

The one group they never irritate: the Brandens.

Just keep your intolerance stealthy? I guess it's not reciprocal in that sense.

"But whatever happened to the 'Popular Front,' Reg?"

"He's over there."

Hey, are we the People's Front of Judea? Or The Judean People's Front? You'd have to reeeeaaaaally hate ARI to join the PFJ.

Jim: Interesting connection about Gail Wynand. I do not doubt that there are ARI loyalists whose integrity has been cracked by ARI's blackballing approach. All you have to do is look at what happened to George Reisman, then you shut your mouth. If you're an ARI intellectual whose career is at stake, it's going to be a difficult thing to speak up, and an easy thing to rationalize your injustice by saying "it's for the greater good of Objectivism that I compromise on this one issue" (altruism & collectivism) or "maybe there's some context here I don't know about that explains things" (skepticism & sycophantism).

To that behavior there's a great answer in the movie "Judgment at Nuremberg".

Shayne

Shayne,

Fair enough. I always wondered though how ARI representatives could read the passages in the Fountainhead about Gail Wynand "breaking" various people and not recognize that behavior in their various ostracisms. It is basically a power-wielding behavior.

Jim

ahem...

People seem to think that this is something that you can blank out, so it will go away, but I ain't going to blank it out. Let's call a spade a spade. Let's look at that gauntlet again - maybe pick it up.

I mean, I have been called a lot of untrue names, with untrue characterizations on this thread, so I have a certain right to at least look at the reality of those who do the name-calling. (I especially thought the pig in a dress insinuation charming...)

Casey Fahy said that his amazing conglomeration of verbiage is nothing but SATIRE. I will admit that there were some sarcastic elements in it. But let's look again. He wrote:

"Objectivism can mean a kind of Christian approach to the world (see some of Michael Stuart Kelly's works if you don't believe me -- everything his brain imagines is, by definition, Objectivism), if we have a broad enough mind and don't bother with definitions much."

For some reason, I fail to get the satirical meaning here. It sounds like a characterization, with references to my work. Let's see the continuation. He wrote:

"Objectivism can break bread with radical Islam, too (just read some of Ed Hudgins' work, which is forever expanding the borders of Objectivism to include everything around it like an insatiable ameoba that rejects the notion of exclusion utterly)."

I fail to get the satirical meaning here too. It sounds like a characterization, with references to Ed Hudgin's work. On the contrary, I have seen nothing but venom spitted at TOC since that SATIRE backpedal was given as a reason.

But Casy Fahy said that all this is a SATIRE of me.

Here is my own appraisal.

If Casey Fahy maintains that these statements are SATIRE, then I say he is a BLATANT LIAR. I say he would be LYING to cover his ass.

(Maybe I misunderstood which part of that mess he meant was satire? There's your out, dude. go for it...)

Michael

Michael,

Yes he did know her personally and gave the reading of the poem "If" at her funeral. I don't know how long he knew her. He also speaks of shortcomings in Barbara's book. In any case, I doubt that a book that completely omits the development of the philosophy of Objectivism in the 1960's can lay much credence in terms of giving a full picture of Rand's personality.

Jim

Do I understand history correctly?

I thought David Kelley knew Ayn Rand personally. Am I mistaken?

If he did know her, well, maybe he forgot everything he knew first-hand and relied solely on PAR for his appraisals.

It's a theory, I suppose...

Michael

"I disagree with Kelley about the merits of Barbara Branden's book, however I don't think he is going to prevent me from going to this year's TOC conference."

ARI doesn't prevent you from going either.

And actually the situation *is* reciprocal. Each side is acting consistently to their reciprocal premises. Your mistake here Jim is to judge TOC by TOC's premises, and then judge ARI by TOC's premises. And so you then wrongly conclude "the situation is not reciprocal."

Shayne

Casey,

I like the above post. It brings the situation into focus. However, there are important differences.

How is TOC forbidding those conclusions? They aren't calling student groups and telling them they can't associate with you. They aren't blackballing you. They aren't telling people not to associate with you as a condition of associating with them. The situation is not reciprocal.

I disagree with Kelley about the merits of Barbara Branden's book, however I don't think he is going to prevent me from going to this year's TOC conference.

Jim

Lindsay, no more time for this, except for one thing:

The comment about you and "standards" was a JOKE, man. A JOKE.

Lighten up.

Here is David Kelley's quote regarding PAR:

"It is clear to me that Ayn Rand was a woman of remarkable integrity, who largely embodied the virtues she espoused. But it is also clear that she had certain other traits often found in great minds who have waged a lonely battle for their ideas: a tendency to surround herself with acolytes from whom she demanded declarations of agreement and loyalty; a growing sense of bitter isolation from the world; a quickness to anger at criticism; a tendency to judge people harshly and in haste. These faults did not outweigh her virtues; I consider them of minor significance in themselves. But they were real, and I thought [Barbara] Branden's book, whatever its other shortcomings, gave a reasonably fair and perceptive account of them.

"All of this is arguable, of course. But it should have been argued, and it wasn't. When the book appeared, I was shocked by the refusal of many prominent Objectivists to discuss the issues it raised, and their tendency to condemn anyone who did."

--David Kelley, PhD, Truth and Toleration (1990, I.O.S.), p. 75

Here is the same quote with PARC inserted and my conclusions of the Brandens based on PARC:

"It is clear to me that Barbara and Nathaniel Branden practiced a deceit of Ayn Rand that lasted for years, and largely contradicted the virtues she represented. It is also clear that they had certain other traits often found in those who follow dynamic thinkers: a tendency to lie about their innermost self to find agreement with the person they idolized and to whom they made excessive declarations of loyalty in this regard; a growing sense of entitlement based on the access they were given in return for this selfless agreement; an employment of militant authoritarianism on behalf of their idol for whom they had traded so much; a tendency to project the blame for their own deceptions on their idol, both harshly and unfairly. These faults outweighed their virtues; I consider them of major significance in themselves. They were real, and I thought Valliant's book, whatever its other shortcomings, gave a reasonably fair and perceptive account of them.

"All of this is arguable, of course. But it should have been argued, and it wasn't. When the book appeared, I was shocked by the refusal of many prominent Objectivists of TOC to discuss the issues it raised, and their tendency to condemn anyone who did."

--Casey Fahy

Now, you can say I have drawn unfair conclusions based on PARC about the Brandens's flaws -- but David Kelley drew conclusions about Rand that are obviously unfair given the evidence in PARC. To make such conclusions then and forbid them now as POLICY is the matter being discussed now.

Jeff,

(sigh)

Mr. Valliant just answered your post and addressed it to Mr. Perrin, whoever that is.

I always see Mr. Fahy & Co. talk about a Michael Kelley, whoever that is.

Now Shayne is talking about David Kelly, whoever that is.

I wonder if spelling people's name incorrectly is a hardline Objectivist value, of if spelling is not much of a value at all to these people in written communication.

Michael

Shayne-

I apologize for concluding your assessment of appeasement was about sanction. However, I think it's possible to judge Branden negatively and read his work and listen to his lectures and judge them on their own. This is my view of sanction.

Jim

Shayne,

It's a shame too. Because I know from first-hand experience that ARI has some brilliant people. I studied under Darryl Wright in college and he was one of the best teachers I ever had.

TOC has a different problem. At their best, they are brilliant. But their student development in philosophy is lousy. They do great research work in philosophy of science, technical epistemology, cognitive science and philosophy of mind, but I fear they are not very good at mid-level instruction in Objectivism.

Many of their best graduate students and recent PhD's such as Carolyn Ray, Irfan Khawaja, Rick Minto and others have struck out on their own. Some, such as Will Wilkinson and Bryan Register have strayed from Objectivism and of course Diana Hsieh has switched to ARI.

I think some of TOC's problems are related to problems with Kelley's theory of error in Truth and Toleration. The reason Objectivist philosophers hold extreme positions is that it is not enough to be principled. You have to establish the principles over and over again in order to bulwark against subjectivism. If the forum and discussion method they use is not supplemented with rigorous, solid mid-level instruction in Objectivism, they will have problems.

Jim

Jim,

You wrote: "Accusing David Kelley of appeasement is simply James and Casey's (and Shane's) way of saying they disagree with Kelley on sanction. So be it."

I'll speak for myself on this if you don't mind and would kindly ask you not to attribute your poor guesses about what I think to me.

My views on PARC & TOC have nothing to do with my views on T&T. Evidently the point has gone clear over your head, but my issue isn't about "sanctioning the Brandens". It's about the nonsense Robert came up with in his last post: the idea that it's a sane policy to arbitrarily divide the intellectual world into two areas as they have. It is of course extremely germane to Objectivism what the true history of it is, and what the true biography of Ayn Rand is. And as Valliant pointed out, there are the other insights into psychology and ethics in PARC. To argue that it's not "relevant" is absolutely farcical--a virtual proof that it's hidden agenda driving their policies not reason.

Now whether they are consciously aware of these agendas or not is a different question. Regarding Kelly being driven by the Brandens: I've seen no evidence that would cause me to conclude that. However, assuming Robert's position is Kelly's position, TOC's policy on this matter certainly makes it *as if* Kelly were receiving his marching orders from the Brandens.

Shayne

Jim: I agree with you. There are brilliant exceptions, but a lot of the seminars are boring, in significant part because ARI is afraid to "sanction" anything that might not be "Objectivist".

James,

One thing I will change from the above is the word "honest" to the words complete and balanced. While you are polemical, I do get the sense you are scrupulous about the facts.

Jim

James,

I do evaluate Branden, negatively. And I will include PARC in that evaluation as I have bought the book. But I will include everything in that evalution and like many professors I disliked personally in college, I will listen to him on subjects where I feel he has something important to say.

I'm not sure what David Kelley's moral estimate of Nathaniel Branden is. Possibly positive, possibly negative. More than likely, he thinks it's time to move on from 1968.

Jim

There is no sealed off world of neutrality. Kelley cannot be value-free on this issue, whether he knows it or not.

He has, in fact, taken one side and rather brutally.

If you were interested in an honest evaluation of Branden you would include PARC.

So would they.

Casey,

The policy of not discussing the Passion of Ayn Rand officially is not new. It existed long before the Brandens were invited to speak at IOS/TOC. You may disagree with the policy, but it is not driven by "marching orders" from the Brandens. Anyone who knows David Kelley knows he doesn't take marching orders from anybody.

IOS was founded as an academic organization. I wish it had stayed that way, but it's their prerogative to grow and change. Nathaniel Branden submits proposals to the Summer Seminar just like anybody else. Sometimes they are approved, sometimes they are rejected based on the merits of the proposal.

If James Valliant were interested in an honest appraisal of Nathaniel Branden, he would have something to say about the content of his works, besides Judgment Day. These psychological works are the only ones that have been advertised in the Navigator. If he thought there were something wrong with those works, he could complain about TOC featuring them.

The broad-based complaint about sanction is part of what the ARI/TOC split was all about. David Kelley and Leonard Peikoff disagree about it. Reams have been written about it. Accusing David Kelley of appeasement is simply James and Casey's (and Shane's) way of saying they disagree with Kelley on sanction. So be it.

Jim

Mr. Perrin,

No, I do not. I made a circumstantial case based on the evidence. TOC will abide no other position but the Brandens'. Whether it is by conscious intent or is the residue of their subconscious values, they take an exclusively pro-Branden position on PARC.

Period.

It has now been brought to their conscious attention.

They stilll don't care.

Are we starting to moralize about intellectual differences? Where's that "toleration"?

Jeff,

James laid out quite logically and specifically the logic beneath this TOC policy of NOT DISCUSSING RAND'S BIOGRAPHY. It is not merely a focus on ideas, but an otherwise inexplicable avoidance of her biography, which avoidance does not make sense from a purely ideological basis -- remember, we are talking about 'Objectivism' so what business does such a prohibition have here from a purely philosophical standpoint? The answer is none. I suggest you rethink your appraisal of what James has said here. You may owe him an apology, just as TOC owes Rand one for sanctioning the Brandens' works and now refusing to examine their credibility while continuing to give sanction to the Brandens. That association -- with the Brandens -- continues to warp their policy even in the light of new evidence, from Rand herself. That is undeniable, and has even been crystalized into a "policy" now. Explain that policy in a more compelling way than James V. has, please, because this simple focus on "ideas not private lives" is insufficient as a proscription of topics otherwise, especially given the nature of Objectivism.

Let me ask you James: what Nathaniel Branden books do you object to besides Judgment Day and why? What would you find objectionable in say "The Six Pillars of Self Esteem" or "The Psychology of Romantic Love". It seems to me you've taken a very selective view of Nathaniel Branden. Why exactly shouldn't people read these works?

Jim

"The Rise and Fall of Ancient Greek Justice: Homer to the Sermon on the Mount Robert Mayhew" is the only one that looks interesting to me.

Activist judges and neocons, boy haven't heard those topics discussed lately.

James,

For a reason I don't go to ARI Seminars, I'll post the following list of Topics (and it's fairly typical):

Ayn Rand's Philosophic Achievement (2 lectures) Harry Binswanger
Consciousness: Foundations of a Rational Theory Harry Binswanger
The Neo-Conservatives—Friends or Foes? Yaron Brook
Creationism in Camouflage: The "Intelligent Design" Deception Keith Lockitch
How "Activist" Should Judges Be?: Objectivity in Judicial Decisions Tara Smith
Ayn Rand's Unique and Enduring Contributions to Literature Shoshana Milgram
Ideas and the Fall of Rome John Lewis
Notes on the Epistemology of Altruism Peter Schwartz
Reclaiming Education (Part 2) Lisa VanDamme
Ayn Rand's Home Atmosphere: Her Family in Russia Dina Schein
The Rise and Fall of Ancient Greek Justice: Homer to the Sermon on the Mount Robert Mayhew
Ayn Rand and the History of Ethics Darryl Wright
Man's Rights: Ayn Rand's Historic Contribution John Ridpath
Capitalism's Economist: The Life and Doctrines of Jean-Baptiste Say Richard M. Salsman

Is there anything in here (with the possible exception of Binswanger's series on Consciousness) that remotely tries to come up with something new? This is the same kind of time-warped, anachronisitic crap, along with the Reisman debacle that led me to leave in the first place.

Jim

James,
This:
"It's perfectly obvious that TOC is taking its marching orders from the Brandens."
is so over the top it doesn't merit serious consideration. It is completely ludicrous and false on it's face. Neither in it's founding, nor in its mission statement, nor practice nor history is there any evidence that would give this characterization merit.

At best it's a grotesque and deliberate misuse of language.

You owe Dr. Kelley and other senior members of TOC an apology, sir.

Whether one agrees with TOC's founding philosophy or not, whatever your view of their personal values, motives, or the appropriateness or lack of using the term Objectivist in their organization, your statement is just ridiculous.

Stooping this level does not help your case.

"This myth of the value-free is the profound philosophical error upon which TOC rests."

"But let's stop playing games: both groups exclude what they find objectionable. ARI is just more honest about it."

Excellent summary.

Shayne

So much for that invitation to the next TOC seminar!

It's perfectly obvious that TOC is taking its marching orders from the Brandens. Let's count the ways we can see it:

1. In order to evade the charge of hypocrisy, we are told that the "focus" of TOC -- both its lectures and publications -- is on ideas. This is misleading.

The words more applicable here are "absolute prohibition against biographical considerations of any kind," not "focus upon philosophical ideas."

It is an absolute rule with no exceptions, it seems, and newly minted for the occasion.

2. This whole premise rest on the Brandenian smear that PARC is just about an affair, when, of course, it is about much more: biography, psychology, historiography, and, yes, philosophy. Neither Rand nor I have the last word to say on any of this, but, for gosh sakes, Rand does talk about such things.

Rand does.

3. This also rests on a very anti-Objectivist idea: the dichotomy between living and thinking -- the very dichotomy which inspired Rand's first notes on philosophy. What is ethics all about but living life? Or any of the other disciplines?

We will not and must not learn from Rand's errors? None of them involve issues extending more than three centimeters beyond one's nose -- or issues that someone else might learn from?

And, for heaven's sake, let's not actually apply the Objectivist ethics to her example. Ethics is too abstract for that, not to be sullied by considerations of whether Objectivism could actually work or anything.

The "objectivism" of TOC is nothing more the moribund rationalism Rand had discovered in Nathaniel Branden -- a "Kantian stylized universe," as Rand puts in her notes. (Notice the issues we find in Rand's notes, e.g., her most complete exposition of "rationalism," etc.)

Jean-Paul Sartre's students could, in fact, learn a lot from his exploits, but they won't. They were never taught to look in that direction, were they? Nor has this stopped the various modes of analysis from the dissection of his life, though, has it?

I will say for the umpteenth time that the truth of Objectivism does not depend on Rand having lived it herself, but there can be no doubt to the sincere Objectivist that her life will -- inevitably -- be instructive in any case.

4. TOC cannot alllow discussion of PARC precisely and only because they wish to appease the Brandens. Their total endorsement of the Brandens -- that's right, the promotion of their work again and again cannot honestly be called anything else -- has them in a box.

"We, the tolerant TOC, will discuss anything, and shame on ARI for evadng Rand's life!"

Despite the so-far arbitrary assertion that TOC is not in perfect unity about such things, we are told that some had objected to Branden's invitation within TOC. We even are told that opinion is divided about PARC within their ranks, too.

But will any of these alleged differences see the light of day over at the tolerant TOC -- that once was so shocked about ARI's silence -- on this very issue? Until this debate actually surfaces, there can be only one conclusion: there are -- "officially" -- no such differences at TOC.

Indeed, TOC speaks with a single voice, it has a big, fat, bright "Party Line," on this issue: an exclusively and intolerantly pro-Branden one.

5. "Intolerance" is inevitable, and desirable, whatever they claim. By selecting certain articles and speakers, they must exclude others. By selecting in favor of Mr. Branden, they lost the Blumenthals, who were also members of Rand's original "Collective." A price they were willing to pay, it seems.

There is no pretended place of neutrality from which TOC can operate.

This myth of the value-free is the profound philosophical error upon which TOC rests.

Jim, it's plain that TOC seminars have meant a lot to you and that they discuss a great many things. The ARI loyalist would say the same about their own conferences.

But let's stop playing games: both groups exclude what they find objectionable. ARI is just more honest about it.

Bidinotto's initial reaction to PARC said it all from the start.

Robert,

You stand accused of evasion. Well damn you! Stop evading will you?

The moral charge of dishonesty is right around the corner. But I ain't waiting. I denounce you and repudiate you, you dishonest evader!

You asked Shayne, "What kind of answer would possibly be satisfactory?" You could have asked that of several here. Can't you see anything, you rotten evasive second-hander?

Simply imagine how the person who asked would have answered, say the same thing and agree with it 100%.

I mean, any child can see that. How dishonest can you get, anyway? Dayaamm!

Michael

Brant,

Valliant/Fahy are trying to make a bunch of hay from the fact that Nathaniel Branden has lectured there. Frankly, I expected they'd make a bigger deal out of the fact that George Smith, Randy Barnett, Mario Rizzo and others have spoken there. Yawn. I imagine their eyes would really bug out if George Smith shot heroin in front of the lecture hall .

It's all another tangled web of moral choreography and guilt by association and I'm not buying it. They've said nothing about Nathaniel Branden's moral character by inviting him to speak other than granting that he might have something worthwhile to say. Rand once wrote about how one of the Supreme Court Justices should not accept guilt for giving a lecture in front of the John Birch Society. I imagine the same applies to David Kelley.

Jim

I cannot stand by my TOC post in which I stated that "toleration" means that "everyone else's philosophy is all all right...."

I don't know this is true particularly or generally and I apologize to anyone mischaracterized or offended.

Thanks for your feedback, James; it made me think.

--Brant

Linz,

Honestly, after the invective pointed at TOC from the former SoloHQ site, I think you protest too much. I engage in plenty of criticism of TOC where I think it falls short and I haven't been upbraided for it. I guess I haven't quite gotten the Lindsay Perigo kick 'em in the nuts gestalt down yet. I need more practice .

I think the Objectivist movement in general is unique as a philosophy in its hand-wringing moralism. Can you imagine the Existentialists being worried about the extra-curricular exploits of Jean-Paul Sartre? I think most of us rightly think that's just a little too much information. I had that reaction to the Passion of Ayn Rand and didn't believe a word of the characterization in there, but Peikoff's reaction was just bizarre.

The Institute for Objectivist Studies wasn't formed to debate Barbara's book. When I first went to a Seminar in 1994 there were a bunch of graduate students and advanced undergraduates debating Hayek and advanced questions in epistemology. So I don't think it's exactly a departure for them not to debate Valliant's book, although you could certainly debate it in the common room if you so desired.

I'm not that impressed with what I've seen so far from Valliant and Fahy. They've torn a hole in the Brandens. Big deal. It's not like a lot of us are hanging on their words with bated breath. We have our own lives and our own understanding of the Objectivist philosophy to worry about. I'll put it to you since you've been to 3 IOS/TOC events.
How much discussion of the Passion of Ayn Rand and Judgment Day and how much slandering of Rand did you witness?

Jim

Robert,

I tell you that the reason why I did not prioritize responding to your other post was because your last got to the CRUX of the issue, and you respond by accusing me of giving you an "avalanche" of questions that you can't see the point of? Well did you consider that maybe, you should just ASK what my point was, because obviously you had missed it?

You lament: "This appears to be pointless, Shayne. I am asked questions, and I answer them forthrightly, but rather than receiving acknowledgment that I have done so, the answers are ignored, and instead I am asked six more questions for every one I answer."

In the face of me saying "Robert, here's the crux ...", you not comprehending why I think it's the crux and KNOWING that you do not, your lament and indeed your entire response here strikes me as incredibly disingenuous and perhaps, just an evasion.

Now if you want to start this back on the right foot, demonstrate your sincerity and ask me why I thought my questions were so important, and I will explain. For unlike you evidently, my default position is that you are honest, and that if you don't understand something I said, that there is probably a way I can put it so that you will.

And by the way, what ever happened with the alleged TOC virtues of "tolerance" and "benevolence"? You certainly are not giving a benevolent reading of my posts.

Shayne

Scott,

Maybe it is because you have not seen some things, or, I don't know... whatever. Since you seem to be posting in good will, there are a few items I want to make clear to you about my "behavior" that I think you do not understand - at least they come off as completely misrepresented in your observations.

You wrote: "I do not think that you are particularly trying to square O'ism and Christianity."

Good. There are several people who have accused me of just that - and in those terms. It is not true. That is why I am a bit careful when this comes up.

You wrote: "You rarely squarely address a direct criticism."

Could you provide an example, please? Then I will proceed to address it as squarely as I can. Incidentally, contrary to what you said, that is what I normally do. So if I haven't done so in one place or another, I would like to rectify it.

I don't remember backing down from any argument. (Only one - when a poster kept trying to push me into saying that he was an evil person when I had stated no such thing and had no such intention, but that was because he is a USA soldier and I respect that much more than getting any point across on a discussion forum. He seemed upset, so I let it ride.)

There is one exception to all this, however. There has been a bit of "criticism" of me recently such as: evasive, slippery, limp-dick, new age, Christian (meaning me), swamp, mush, well... you get the picture.

Are there any of these "criticisms" you think I should address squarely? If so, why? Is there any intellectual content to any of them I am missing? Or are they just meant as someone opening their shirt and beating on their chest and letting out a Tarzan holler?

You wrote: "You also pepper your disagreements with mildly insulting stuff like the head in the sand comment."

If you take a look at any of those posts where this kind of thing appears, then take a look at whom it is addressed to and read what that person wrote about me, you will find that the "mildly insulting stuff" always started with the other poster. Always.

I just hit back and many people are not used to that. Some people find it offensive. Sorry. My advice is: don't dish it out to me if you don't want it back in your face. Find an easier person to shit on.

That's about as clear as I can get. And I don't mean that offensively or belligerently. Just aiming at extreme clarity.

Michael

MSK—this may be something the webmasters need to look at. I hit "reply" at the end of the thread as it then was because that's the only posting option displayed. As it happens, your post was the most recent one. Apparently, the way *you* have things configured, my post appears as a reply to that post rather than to Robert, even though I've headed it up, "Robert's Apologetics" and it simply appears in chronological order—at least, the way *I* have things configured.

Anyway, re your points re Xianity; notwithstanding our disagreements re cheek-turning, I'm not unsympathetic, as you would gather from the article I wrote when the Pope died. Somehow Xianity is still "hitting the spot" in a way that O/ism is not. But rather than try to deal with it on this thread, why don't you start another on just this topic?

Linz

Linz,
I have to disagree on at least this point:
"Then there's this piece of venom"

I think you've seen Robert's sense of humor in action often enough to read this as I did, nothing but sarcasm. I.e. I read it as suggesting that TOC had no reason whatever to apologize for your participation.

Robert B? Am I being too easy on you here?

To your avalanche of new questions, Shayne:

"...[At ARI conferences] you can get lectures on Frank Sinatra or Ayn Rand--as 'personalities.' Do you think this is wrong?"

No.

"If so, why?"

See above.

"If not, then why does TOC exclude such things?"

Because of their irrelevance to Objectivism. Such topics might be raised by attendees in participant-sponsored presentations, which are not part of our formal program. But what conceivable insights about the philosophy can be gained by rummaging through private letters in order to probe the sexual relationships of individuals, and assess the reliability of the biographers who report about them?

"How does this square with Objectivism?"

That is a question I should be asking YOU.

"How does it square with 'tolerance of other viewpoints'?"

The issue here is not tolerance, but relevance. Specifically, philosophical relevance. The intimate lives of Frank Sinatra or Ayn Rand, or the moral characters of their biographers, have nothing to do with an understanding of Objectivism.

"Or is there in fact no legitimate 'why';"

Huh?

"...is it in fact the case that TOC's policy on this topic exists in order to appease?"

Certainly, Shayne. Just like the "tolerance" policy of the Ford Hall Forum...which policy Ayn Rand endorsed.

Incidentally, I love the "have you stopped beating your wife" form of that question.

This appears to be pointless, Shayne. I am asked questions, and I answer them forthrightly, but rather than receiving acknowledgment that I have done so, the answers are ignored, and instead I am asked six more questions for every one I answer. Why? Because the premise underlying the endless questions is evidently that I cannot possibly be giving honest answers in defense of a legitimate, or even plausible, policy; I can only conceivably be motivated by some moral failing, e. g., "in order to appease."

If your bedrock premise is my dishonesty, then say that, and spare me the trouble of trying very hard to answer fully someone who will never be satisfied with any answer I could possibly give.

Or let me turn this around: What kind of answer would possibly be satisfactory?

At the 2006 Summer Seminar, I plan to address the principles -- though not the principals -- at the root of this discussion, in a lecture tentatively titled, "The Anatomy of Cooperation." For now I have no further time for this.

MSK:

Just so that we understand each other, I do not think that you are particularly trying to square O'ism and Christianity.  I was just pointing out that it cannot and should not be done, because they are antithetical.

Your arguments do jump around.  You rarely squarely address a direct criticism.  You can conduct yourself however you choose.  After all, its your life.  And making up one's own mind is what real freedom is all about.

You also pepper your disagreements with mildly insulting stuff like the head in the sand comment.

In this, you, Fahey and Valliant are similar, but different in degree.  I think their posts are much more filled with bile and nastiness than yours.

Fahey and Valliant want to define the argument or disagreement, and want you to play by their rules.  It's sort of heads I win, tails you lose. 

I really appreciate Robert Bidinotto's posts.  To me, he is coming off as the least partisan and most reasonable of the bunch.  True, he did piss on Valliants book without having read it--a curiously ARIan behavior.  But I'll tell you, it really IS my impression that on some level, Valliant and Fahey are rather shills for ARI.  When's the last time YOU got an invitation to access private, sealed ARI stuff?  Stuff that guys like Ramblin' Robert and Triple D would lilely never get access to?

One of the big schisms between ARI Objectivism and TOC Objectivism, to my understanding, is the significance of personality trifles, and esthetic preferences.  My impression of the ARI line is that everything you do must be considered, judged and approved according to Randian edict.  Music preference, social behavior, things such as these are interpreted according to what Rand wrote was best, and what her 'intellectual heir' has determined is most rational. SUre, its not like they take you out in the back and shoot you if they dont like your tie, or you refuse to retreat from an intellectual position.  But if you do not eventually change the tie or flip on an idea, you are eventually relegated to "flawed" status, and they look down their noses at you.  Or you are "disaapeared."

In this sense, ARIans are REQUIRED by these beliefs to maintain the illusion of perfection in Rand.  And, since Rand repudiated Branden, demonize Branden.  Of course, Rand would only prefer rational music.  She would only thin rational thoughts.  She would never act on emotion.  She was the most rational person ever to live, and since rational people only act rationally (and since it is irrational and IMMORAL to act otherwise), she was perfect according to her standard of moral conduct.

TOC takes a step back, to my understanding.  TOC also seems to accept  the idea that someone who holds a contrary idea is not necessarily an enemy.  That a person can appreciate a less rational musical form, but still be a friend of Objectivism, or even an Objectivist.  That a person can act on emotion on occasion, and maybe it is a mistake, but is not so damning of their sole that they ought to be an object of scorn or derision.  This view of Objectivism allows a Rand who occasionally made a mistake or fucked up.  It allows for different levels of understanding, and learning Objectivism, and integrating Objectivism as a process.  It allows someone to be mistaken, but still be moral.  Rather than having only two judgment options:  (1) Perfectly moral; or (2) utterly depraved.

This analysis at least explains why: (1) ARI has a vested interest in protecting the public and private life of Rand, as well as her ideas; and (2) Why TOC does not necessarily have to defend every word and action of Rand's while still esteeming her tremendous accomplishments.

The entire Affiar makes my skin crawl.  The whole thing was a slimy deception, and it doesn't help my estimation of either Branden, or of Rand.  It also cements the strong postive finding on my bullshit detector every time someone tells me what music I ought to enjoy, or snowball me into believing that the contents of their mind ought to determine how I act, what I do, who I speak to, or what former friend I ought to pretend doesn't exist anymore.  Or