The Argument from Intimidation

Linz,

Thanks for the information about the questions Chris asked. It's very useful to have the actual questions:

1. Could it be that ARI and/or the Estate might have been worried that they'd have to pay a royalty to the Brandens if their voices were left on the tapes?

2. Did either of you or both of you negotiate an end to the use of your voices by Rand and her heirs in taped lecture courses?

Chris reports that the answer to both questions from both Brandens was "no." Unfortunately, the questions are not asked in a way that would legally satisfy ARI's legal representatives.

The first question is bizarre -- the Brandens cannot definitively answer whether ARI "might have been worried." They certainly can't answer unequivocally "No."

The second question is also of no use, since it only asks if there has been in the past a legal disposition of these matters. That doesn't give ARI any assurances either.

The questions to ask are:

1. Would either of the Brandens sue if their voices were used in these products, e.g. would they demand to make money from their use?

2. Would making money from their use take priority over setting the historical record straight, or would setting the historical record straight be more important to them than making money from their use?

These are the only sort of questions that would be useful here.

Post 221

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 4:07pm

Casey,

Your answers about legal concerns don't ring true to me. It's clear that personae non grata are systematically edited out of existence by ARI and not just the Brandens. George Reisman, David Kelley, George Walsh and others have been systematically purged from ARI-aligned book services. Harry Binswanger gets hot and bothered about people purchasing or reading Nathaniel Branden's books and has a ridiculous set of conditions on joining his e-mail list.

Of course, they have every right to do this and I have every right to laugh at it for the silliness that it is.

Jim

Post 222

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 4:32pm

Jim,

My answers are exclusively about the Brandens and their voices being omitted from educational products. My comments were not meant to extend beyond anything that I have actually discussed in my posts.

I am mystified by the Reisman situation, too. I had dinner with Dr. Reisman and Dr. Packer before he gave a speech at UCSD some years back. I was ignorant enough to ask them a question about Leonard Peikoff at that dinner, which caused a sudden and inexplicably awkward silence. Edith Packer responded to me only with a cordial question: "What do YOU think about it?" Dr. Reisman just focused on his plate and kept chewing. A couple of others around the table shot glances at me, and if looks could kill I would have been carried out in a bodybag. Afterwards, I was informed by others about the split, and I just shook my head, sad. Why are they senselessly tearing each other apart, I thought to myself.

I do have reason to put the Brandens in an entirely different class, however. And with Brandens around, who needs paranoia? They're enough to justify EXTREME CAUTION all by themselves. And the silence of scholars outside of ARI to publicly address the deceptions of the Brandens can not fill the hearts of ARIans with confidence, either. According to Chris, such reservations about the Brandens are commonly if not universally held by scholars. You sure wouldn't know it! Only 10% of the articles in JARS, for instance, may rely on the Brandens, and one of those articles might reject the Brandens -- the rest is deafening silence that leads to widespread acceptance of the Brandens' works. For heavens' sakes, what are scholars for if not to disabuse the general public of widespread acceptance of falsehoods?

Do I think ARI has gone too far in the other direction from TOC? TOC flings all the doors open and the next thing you know they're practically multiculturalists. ARI closes all the doors and kicks out anyone suspected of consorting with the enemy. Which one is more dangerous to Objectivism? It's a good question. I lean towards TOC, because too much watering down of Objectivism and the next thing you know you're finding it compatible with Christianity, of all things. At least that kind of corruption will never happen at ARI.

I feel more dismayed about the possibility that good people, such as Reisman, were unjustly hurt because of disputes in ARI's hierarchy. But I don't know the details about those issues. They don't look good, however, and they do damage.

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 11/02, 4:35pm)

Post 223

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 4:53pm

I might be getting Dr. Bernstein in trouble for this, but I attended a talk hosted by FROG where he was speaking about his new book, The Capitalist Manifesto. He did mention Dr. Reisman's book, but not in a negative way. Based on his expression and mannerisms alone I would have guessed that he thought Dr. Reisman's book was an important work. Of course, he didn't explicitly come out to condemn or sanction it, he only mentioned it in the same breath as other authoritative works.

Mind you, Dr. Bernstein is an ARI affiliated scholar.

Post 224

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 4:58pm

Mr. Fahy,

You write: "And the silence of scholars outside of ARI to publicly address the deceptions of the Brandens can not fill the hearts of ARIans with confidence, either. According to Chris, such reservations about the Brandens are commonly if not universally held by scholars. You sure wouldn't know it!"

Isn't it possible that the average semi-Randian or non-Randian who writes on Rand isn't: (a) interested in the Brandens or (b) doesn't have access to the information needed to make an honest appraisal of the Brandens?

And are you seriously saying that the reason ARIans don't discuss the work of semi-Randians is because they refuse to publicly express doubts about the Brandens? I've never heard that before and the common arguments given by ARIans to not discuss semi-Randians are: (1) they don't understand Objectivism; (2) their arguments constitute "rationalism" (whatever that means); or (3) they are dishonest.

Post 225

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 5:04pm

Casey,

Nobody has to read PARC(which I haven't) to know the Branden biographies are flawed and unfair hatchet jobs. There are enough inconsistencies in the two versions of Judgment Day that it just strains credulity and neither of the biographies says much at all about Rand's development of Objectivism in the 60's when she was supposedly an depressed, emotional cripple.

So how is ARI erasing tapes like Nixon going to redress the damage?

As far as TOC is concerned, in the areas that I'm interested in: philosophy of science, cognitive science, psychology and economics they give interesting presentations and they actually try to break new ground. Now I'm very concerned about the level of understanding of Objectivism that the philosophy students coming out of TOC have, some of the ineffectiveness of the activism and some of the bizarre Op-Eds I've seen in the past.

However, my first concern in dealing with anybody is whether I'm free to speak my mind in their presence. If not, they are really not practitioners of Objectivism.

Jim

Post 226

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 5:07pm

The fact that we do not know the cause or nature of someone else's moral judgment does not mean that we can start flinging accusations of moral intolerance, evil and Stalinism. For one thing that would be the kind of thing I might call irrationally "moralistic" and "intolerant."

Of course, if those making the judgment will not tell us the cause and nature of their judgment, then those others cannot expect us to automatically share this judgment.

However, we must also distinguish between mere ostracism (everybody's right) and not selling someone's books or lectures anymore from an active alteration of previous materials. But even the latter is sometimes necessary. Can't one change his mind? Can't someone retrospectively reevaluate a person's whole work based on something new? Can't an author make corrections to earlier work based on the new understanding?

It will depend on the facts, won't it?

A "break" is everyone's right and moral judgment everyone's responsibility.

I do not know the facts behind the Reisman deal. I also know that certain ARI-affliated Objectivists continue to cite him their own work. It is also clear that others have made a sharp judgment about him and his wife.

Absent knowledge it would be irresponsible to start judging ANYONE.

If someone can produce evidence of dishonesty, then I will happily attend to their case. But the burden of proof is squarely on the accuser.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 11/02, 5:14pm)

Post 227

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 5:16pm

Neil says:

"Isn't it possible that the average semi-Randian or non-Randian who writes on Rand isn't: (a) interested in the Brandens or (b) doesn't have access to the information needed to make an honest appraisal of the Brandens?"

Jim says:

"Nobody has to read PARC(which I haven't) to know the Branden biographies are flawed and unfair hatchet jobs. There are enough inconsistencies in the two versions of Judgment Day that it just strains credulity and neither of the biographies says much at all about Rand's development of Objectivism in the 60's when she was supposedly an depressed, emotional cripple."

[emphasis mine]

I, for one, am happy that Valliant's book is now available so that conflicting perceptions such as these are conclusively and finally cleared up.

Post 228

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 6:10pm

James,

The difference in the Reisman case is that there is no evidence for Peikoff, Binswanger and Schwartz and the supporting documents have been supplied by Reisman and Packer. The faxes and documents leading up to that split can be found here:

http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/ari/about.html

One of the hallmarks of objectivity is the transparency and evenhandedness which evidence is handled and whether people are forthcoming with information that is material to making a judgment. ARI generally flunks those tests.

I knew Gary Hull and Linda Reardan each on opposite sides of this thing. I have listened to lectures by Dr. Reisman in person. I'm making my own judgment as any honest man must.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 11/02, 6:12pm)

Post 229

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 6:31pm

Mr. Fahy,

If all of the semi-Randians came out and said that the Branden books were flawed, would the ARIans then take the semi-Randians seriously? I doubt it.

The fact is that the attitude that the ARI has toward non-ARI scholars probably has next to nothing to do with the Brandens.

Post 230

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 6:46pm

Thanks for the links James. Interesting stuff!

Ethan

Post 231

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 7:32pm

Jim,

Thank you for the links.

But after having read it all again -- even trying to fill in the gaps by myself -- I still don't have the information to judge the situation. Edith Packer admits to error, and each side is concerned about how the other has treated his side over a course of time. I cannot begin to determine who's right from this material.

Even the "character" evidence from one's own experience, as with any evidence of this kind, must be treated with caution under such circumstances.

I do remain open to being convinced -- and certainly to more data -- and if I'm missing something obvious, or even not-so-obvious, please let me know...

It is apparent that their mutual hostilities had made any continued working business relationship impossible.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 11/02, 7:42pm)

Post 232

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 7:56pm

James,

Why is Peikoff's answer to these things always to throw people out? After a while you have to ask whether he can get along with anybody who contradicts him? And why all the use of power instead of argument? Why does he try to cajole Linda Reardan into taking his side with no evidence?

You spoke of the right to ostracism. This is quite different from coordinated ostracism where you demand that no one associate with someone you've broken with as a condition of dealing with you.

Peikoff made the judgment, the burden of proof is on him.

Jim

Post 233

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 8:13pm

Jim,

I've seen that website before. However, this time reading it I caught something new:

http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/ari/memo_rp.html

"In preparation for the call, we sent him our memos to ARI, dated October 26 and 27, 1993, which had precipitated our being thrown off the ARI Board of Advisors. We also sent him a copy of George's article The Real Right to Medical Care Versus Socialized Medicine, along with a copy of Harry Binswanger's memo to ARI which concluded that the article "should not be promoted by ARI (or any Objectivists)." We were confident that a reading of these materials would provide a prima facie case that we were being attacked unjustly."

Just what was that article that Harry Binswanger condemned? For that matter where is the Binswanger's memo, or do they only want to present evidence that makes them look good? I'm curious to read it now. It seems that article was part of their calculus. That's an important piece of missing evidence.
(Edited by Eddie Wood
on 11/02, 8:17pm)

Post 234

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 8:30pm

Eddie,

Here is a link to the first ten pages of that article:

http://www.capitalism.net/excerpts/1-931089-08-6.pdf

Unfortunately, I can't yet find the whole thing on the web.

Jim

Post 235

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 8:38pm

Thanks Jim. I'll have to read it tomorrow.

Post 236

Wednesday, November 2, 2005 - 10:58pm

Jim,

Gosh, do I need to list the things I'd need to know to make a judgment here? Just in your example of "cajoling," I'd need much more context and the perspective of the other side as to this point. And this is the kind of issue that might hinge on perspective.

Like I say, the two sides were not going to just keep working together in harmony, that's for sure. Just on the grounds of "irreconcilable differences," you grant the divorce in this case.

The burden of proof -- to convince me -- has not been met either way. And Peikoff owes no one any explanation for his judgments. But these are the consequences of failing to provide such an explanation: on the one hand, he cannot expect others to necessarily share that judgment -- on the other hand, we have no grounds yet to call him "moralistic" or, as you suggest, intolerant of being contradicted.

I admit that having contradicted him and survived, I may not be the best judge of the matter though...

Post 237

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 2:39am

James,

I'm not claiming Peikoff is immoral. I'm claiming that he has blind spots, you don't want to be on his bad side, he holds grudges and you don't want to count too much on his friendship unless you are Peter Schwartz or Harry Binswanger.

I suppose we all draw our own conclusions from the evidence we have at hand. Personally, all that means is that I'll read his books and listen to his lecture tapes but I don't endorse him (or Binswanger or Schwartz) as a person.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 11/03, 2:40am)

Post 238

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 4:11am

James H,

You know, I have been wondering about that blind spot. I have been wondering seriously how people of Mr. Valliant's intelligence could do what he does and not see what he is doing. (I don't mean that as an insult either - just looking and seeing.)

How can the ARI versus Branden feud become a substitute for the truth in people's minds? I admit to my bias, but I also fight against it to make sure that it does not cloud my thinking.

So I have been doing some reading of what went on while I was gone all these years. I just read, "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir" by Leonard Peikoff. One paragraph caught my attention:

I am not a Kantian. I do not believe that we can know Ayn Rand only as she appeared to somebody or other. But if I were to grant that premise for a split second, if I were to agree that we all construe reality according to our own personal preferences, then I would still draw a fundamental moral distinction between two kinds of preferences: between those of the muckrakers and those of the hero-worshipers. It is the distinction between the people who, confronted by a genius, are seized with a passion to ferret out flaws, real or imaginary, i.e., to find feet of clay so as to justify their own blighted lives�as against the people who, desperate to feel admiration, want to dismiss any flaw as trivial because nothing matters to them in such a context but the sight of the human greatness that inspires and awes them. In this kind of clash, I am sure, you recognize where I stand.

This was written back in 1987 and there is the false dichotomy. (This was one year after Barbara's book came out.) Either you are a muckraker trying to justify your own slimy life, or you are a hero-worshiper who is willing to "dismiss any flaw as trivial."

That is a misguided transposition of Ayn Rand's art esthetics on to history. A human life is not a work of art. It is a human life.

And there most definitely is a third category of people Mr Peikoff did not mention in his muck/hero dichotomy.

Those who like facts.

Michael

Post 239

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 4:37am