The Argument from Intimidation

Casey,

Thank you for that anecdote about Reisman and Packer. I think the enemy of a healthy Objectivist movement is not honest confrontation (within bounds) and disclosure, but the corrosive mouth-pinched silence, lying and the coverups.

Jim

Post 241

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:25am

Everyone,

As I have said before I never had a position in the Rand-Branden feud because it had no bearing upon the truth and beauty I found in Ayn Rand's philosophy. However, I do understand the validity of setting the record about Rand. The Brandens had their go at it, and then James Valliant investigated, found problems with the Brandens' statement of the facts, and then set forth what he found to be true from the available evidence (including Rand's personal journals).

We now have in SOLO the fourth or fifth big thread on the Valliant project. In this big brawl I have seen what I think is the right approach to Valliant's book. For instance, Linz read it despite previous doubts about it and found the facts it reported generally compelling. However, much of what I've seen is the dismal practice of attacking the messenger instead of dealing with the message. People like MSK have repeatedly (and dishonestly) insinuated a lack of integrity to Valliant, but have had little to say about what his book actually says. MSK and his ilk try this and that way to impugn Valliant's character and workmanship in their so-called pursuit of the truth, but of course who Valliant is secondary to the truth of the facts reported in his book.

I don't know whether the Brandens got Rand right or Valliant has. Sorting out the history and the fall-out of The Affair is not at the top of my priorities. I am simply giving you the benefit of a non-partisan's view of this dispute, which is that the supporters of the Brandens have not covered themselves in glory.

Andy

Post 242

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:49am

Andy,

From where I sit and what I've read I happen to like James Valliant. Michael doesn't understand James Valliant because he doesn't understand prosecutors. Once they're confident they've got their man/woman, they tear them apart piece by piece. Given the tone and content of the Branden biographies that may be the only thing that could have been done. However, I'll admit freely that I lack the stomach for it. I was barely able to get through Judgment Day. I'll get through PARC at some point.

Jim

Post 243

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 8:12am

Andy,

Why do you carry out these vendettas against people on this board? It's obvious you don't much care for Adam Reed and Michael Stuart Kelly. Are you really communicating much more than that?

Jim

Post 244

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 9:03am

Andy Posterior had a difficult childhood.

At the age of 6 he was sent to work at the circus to fund his evil step-mother's toffee habit. He spent years toiling as a fake prize in the coconut shy. While most of the customers were poor throws, he would usually get a shot in the face 5 or 6 times a day. He finally ran away after the Boston Red Sox visited the circus on a team-bonding session.

Ever since then he has been gripped by frequent rages. I would avoid mentioning baseball to him at any time.

Post 245

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 10:22am

MSK,

Thank you for digging out that excerpt from Peikoff's Intellectual Memoir. I think it captures Peikoff precisely.

Jim

Post 246

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 9:18am

I'd criticize you Andy, but you might start a thread headed by my name. I'm a coward, you see. Probably dishonest too. Now that Diana Hsieh has done her drive-by, firing her machine gun from the back seat of Linz's Wombat 12 (she doesn't post here directly because of the piranhas), it was inevitable that we commonly think of Michael Kelly as "dishonest." So much for him; so much for the Brandens.

--Brant

Post 247

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 11:42am

Byron,

It's a small point and an aside, but just to be absolutely precise, the imagined scenario was played out on two levels:

Level 1 (cognitive) - An imaginary cognitive premise based on Kant: i.e., "... we can know Ayn Rand only as she appeared to somebody or other."

Level 2 (normative) - A division within that imaginary scenario based on an evaluation of the present reality (i.e., the reality of the time he wrote that). He says that here: "... I would still draw a fundamental moral distinction between two kinds of preferences: between those of the muckrakers and those of the hero-worshipers."

To be clear, he imagined that people could know something in a different manner (cognitive), but he still judged the result by his standard of attributing hero/villain status based on his own held value judgments (normative).

Thus dismissing the entire scenario as imaginary so it doesn't count, or in your words, "Peikoff was not arguing that such a dichotomy exists," is a logical error by being too all-inclusive. Cognitively you are correct, the thing is hypothetical. In normative terms, Peikoff was arguing precisely that such a dichotomy does exist in this reality.

Michael

Edit - Brant - LOLOLOLOLOL... Thanks. But for the record, let me say a word about James Valliant's integrity (and Casey's) - and even Diana Hsieh's integrity. I do not for a moment think that they are dishonest. Whoever claims that I do is simply mistaken. I do believe that they make mistakes of cognitive evaluation based on strong prejudices, but those prejudices are deeply held. I do not believe that they are trying to deceive anybody. I believe that they are motivated by what they deem to be the good.

But for the record also, I apply the same standard to myself - that is why I recognize my bias and (cognitively) try only to look at the facts. I am not trying to deceive anybody. I do get riled when those facts get hidden - and the very hiding of them is hailed as a cognitively correct thing to do. It isn't.

James Valliant brings to bear on his arguments a full arsenal of rhetorical devices he has honed in his experience as a trial lawyer. Part of that is making sure that he has said somewhere something objective (like admitting that the Brandens did give some hard facts and even held high esteem for Rand - this last always strictly qualified), but then following that one statement by a barrage of speculations on base motives and outright declarations about dishonesty and so forth.

That is not dishonest in itself, it is instead a competent use of his persuasion techniques, which I hope I have been a bit successful in pointing out. For one who disagrees with many of his conclusions and speculations (like painting with empty booze bottles and so forth), the rhetorical method must be separated from the facts - so I can simply see the facts.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/03, 11:59am)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/03, 12:03pm)

Post 248

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 11:55am

Michael, seems to me Peikoff's hypothetical was fundamentally dishonest. Isn't he at least guilty of "borrowing a concept?" If Kant is wrong, Kant is wrong. To suggest that one wrong assessment is better than another wrong assessment is objectively meaningless, except in describing personal prejudice, no?

-Kevin

Post 249

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 11:56am

POST 219 MUST BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY!

Post 219 actually discusses the issue. Poster 219 obviously doesn't understand that the purpose of this thread is to evade and deny.

Poster 219 should have been discussing the REAL ISSUES: the omission of footnotes from new editions of dated publications, BB's voice was voice-overed by ARI, Peikoff is evil, lawyers are awful, while civility is a wonderful thing, and it may or may not be appropriate to say "shut the fuck up."

See, poster 219, you have to understand that Objectivism recognizes that ALL FACTS are relevant to every aspect of reality. Therefore it is apparently necessary to spend virtually all of an Objectivist's time discussing the most trivial and distant facts, while ignoring the most important facts, like what Rand actually said.

Some might call this evasion. I see it as such. However, it seems that the posters at SOLO find that it is proper to spend a great deal of time on whether omitting BB's voice on a tape that was previously available with her voice, is or is not immoral.

Looking through this thread, and through the previous "Passion" threads, it is apparent that what Ayn Rand actually wrote down in her journal entries is of very little importance. Other than an occasional generalized reference to PARC, Rand's Journal entries are not quoted nor are they discussed.

If out of about 1000 posts on various threads fail to actually quote or discuss what Rand wrote in her journal entries, is there at least a fair inference of evasion? Even Saint Augustine got quoted on one thread--- just not Rand's journal entries in PARC.

I agree generally with poster 219

...I want to see less attention paid to AR's personal life, and more to her philosophy. However, I could not resist the temptation to hear AR's side in her own words.

I agree that EVEN IF Rand was the brilliant hypocrite that Branden paints her, I am still an objectivist. However, it is not irrelevant to me that Rand did in fact live her philosophy, as demonstrated by PARC.

Sorry for the interruption. You can now all return to insulting each other, or me if you prefer.

(Edited by steve carver on 11/03, 12:07pm)

Post 250

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 12:15pm

MSK,

I'm sorry! You DO understand what a prosecutor does...LOL. Now I'll really have to read PARC.

Jim

Post 251

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 12:36pm

Byron,

Where on earth are my manners? It's great to see you back. You have been missed.

Michael

Post 252

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 1:05pm

Brant,

I'm a coward, you see. Probably dishonest too.

I'll have to take your word for it, because the posts of yours that I have read didn't indicate that to me.

Other than to make a public disclosure of your character, I don't understand your post. I didn't write about the dishonesty of MSK and his allies. I wrote about their persistence in attacking the messenger rather than the message. The Brandenites have a lot to say about Valliant and other personalities in the Rand-Branden feud, but little to say about the actual record that has been established. For instance, Valliant's book, PARC.

I'm giving you the perspective of someone has taken no stake in the truth of The Affair. But if I were to judge the matter from the character and the conduct of the partisans, the Brandenites are not doing their case any favors. Take it for what it's worth.

Andy

Post 253

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 1:12pm

Fraser,

Remember that I never had a cross word to say to you until you came out called me a liar a few days ago. You had nothing of substance to say about what I wrote, but you saw fit to defame me. Since then you've been whining because I wouldn't roll over on your insult. Be a man, get over it.

Andy

Post 254

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 1:15pm

Andy,

How do you reconcile what you say in post 252 with the following?
You just sneak it in there and backpedal when someone calls you on it.

People like MSK have repeatedly (and dishonestly) insinuated a lack of integrity to Valliant

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 11/03, 1:18pm)

Post 255

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 1:23pm

Easy, James. Attacking the messenger instead of the message is the ad hominem fallacy. Its use can be a mistake, or it can be cleverly employed by the intellectually dishonest. The fact that I think MSK and some of the Brandenites are in the latter camp does not change my substance of my complaint against their reliance upon this fallacy to make their case against PARC.

Andy

Post 256

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 1:25pm

James,

LOLOLOLOLOL...

Time for the backpedal now.

That whole approach is part of why I am a bit hostile to Andy. I see him constantly barge in with a very aggressive statement like that, then when he gets the attention he seems to seek, he will make a contradictory one then backpedal, or he will let himself become "convinced."

I see it as a social game, not a quest for truth. It irks me when it gets acrimonious, then gets touted as being KASS or moral or whatnot. It isn't.

The guy wants a pat on the head. That's all.

Here's one for you, Andy.

(group hug)

//;-)

Michael

Post 257

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 1:25pm

Andy,

The thread is already off-topic. It was not about Valliant's book, but if you have some thoughts to share about PARC we'd love to hear them.

Jim

Post 258

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 1:41pm

You just sneak it in there and backpedal when someone calls you on it.

For the record, James, I responded to you in the previous post before you took the trouble to edit your post to add this piece of crap to it. What I find irrational, smelly, and small-minded are whiners like you and Fraser who come out of the woodwork to insult me, even though I had never said an ill word to you.

I ignore most of the insults and stupidities that have come my way in this forum. Most are irrationally spawned from the fact that I don't quiver and quail when I want to say something. They seldom have anything to do with the substance of what I wrote, so most of my don't merit my attention.

However, James, I think it worthwhile to address the turd you deliberately inserted into your post. It marks the difference between my approach to people and yours. Mine is the Objectivist way. Yours is collectivist. I judge people individually, and I usually don't bother with making that judgment unless a person has something to do with me. Until now I have had no reason to deal with you, and certainly gave you no cause for grievance against me. Yet you insult me. Why?

Because, like a lot of people, you put a person into group so that you can apply a collective judgment against him. How else do you justify yourself? Have I insulted you? Have I said anything to you? Have I even mentioned your name anywhere? Apply the trader principle to our interaction and tell me how I earned an insult from you.

When you realize that you cannot rationally do that, then you might understand my beef with those who persist in attacking Valliant as a means of denouncing his book.

Andy

Post 259

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 1:45pm