Wrapping Up the Sciabarra Fight

I don't want to be like Diana.

Post 81

Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 7:03pm

Does anyone have a copy of "The Russian Radical" handy?

Diana quotes Chris, "thanking "Leonard Peikoff... and the Estate of Ayn Rand for timely correspondence on several issues of historical and legal significance to the current project" in the acknowledgements of The Russian Radical (xi).

I'm looking for the exact quote.

Can anyone tell me what is in the ellipsis and if there is any other mention of Peikoff or the Estate or ARI! in the acknowledgments?

Also, how many people does he thank or acknowledge overall?

Thanks,

Phil

Post 82

Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 7:25pm

[Dang - and I just packed that the other day..... [sigh]]

Post 83

Sunday, May 21, 2006 - 10:09pm

Phil, Chris does a lot of acknowledging. It covers 3 pages of the book. Here are some highlights, starting from the top, with big snips cut out:

*******************************************
This book is the product of many years of research and dialogue. I owe a debt of gratitude to many individuals.

For their constructive comments on my earlier article, "Ayn Rand's Critique of Ideology": Walter Block, the late Roy Childs, Douglas Den Uyl, Howard Dickman, Antony Flew, Jeff Friedman, Robert Hessen, Robert Hollinger, Greg Johnson, Don Lavoie, Eric Mack, and Wallace Matson.

[snip 8-line paragraph]

My acknowledgments also to the Ayn Rand Institute, Lectures on Objectivism, and Second Renaissance Books for giving me the opportunity to purchase and lease materials, including hundreds of hours of audio and video lectures by Ayn Rand and other Objectivists, and to Leonard Peikoff, Diane LeMont, and the Estate of Ayn Rand for timely correspondence on several issues of historical and legal significance.

[snip another PAGE AND A HALF]

In acknowledging the above parties, I do not mean to suggest their implicit or explicit endorsement of any of the ideas herein expressed. What appears in this book is my own interpretation of Ayn Rand's legacy and philosophy for which I take full responsibility. I do not speak for a group or a movement, but only for myself.
*********************************************

That's the end of the excerpt. By the way, he thanks me. And "Fred Weiss" too.
(Edited by John Enright
on 5/22, 3:56pm)

Post 84

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 2:30am

John,

Thank you for including the disclaimer that implicit endorsement was not being suggested by the acknowledgment. (Some people forgot that disclaimer was there - or maybe they didn't read it.)

Michael

Post 85

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 3:59pm

You know, a lot of people actually like being thanked. I was glad to be thanked by Chris, even though I'd only helped with one little thing. I thought he was very gracious.

Post 86

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 4:43pm

I was thanked in Total Freedom. My best guess as the reason for the thanks, was probably Chris's general impressions from contributions I had made to online forums, like the Objectivism-L or We the Living lists. Probably all that orthodox Mack-ian rights theory I was promulgating all those years ago. ;-) But as to anything specific in terms of helping out or commenting on the project that was Total Freedom, I couldn't say that I had contributed anything, specifically. I'm sure that was much the case with quite a number of other folks he thanked, which seems to include just about any regular participant in online Objectivism forums at the time.

There's a, frankly ridiculous, discussion over on SOLO of Chris's crediting practices. Of any aspect of Diana's indictment, this one seems the most bogged down in trivia and minutae. And boring. Linz P. would attribute such crediting practices to Chris spreading himself far and wide a la "Her Royal Whoreness." I just attribute it to Chris's thoroughness in crediting anything and everything that he could possibly recall, in helping him out in any way. He lists tons and tons of people. The same goes for his thoroughness in citing any and every work that had some bearing on his project(s), if you look through the lists of works cited. Clearly he's erring on the side of generosity in crediting, rather than stinginess.

That's just Chris's style, and why people seem to go out of their way to fault him as a person for that, is rather beyond me. It's gotta be the least substantive aspect of Diana's article. If folks want more substantive evidence of his wanting to pretend to be sanctioned by so-and-so, they're going to have to look elsewhere.

Post 87

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 4:53pm

Chris, I'm still surprised this acknowledgment issue has been included in the bill of particulars against CMS.

CMS explicitly declared that nobody was endorsing him. Despite this, his punctilious gratitude is now interpreted as a sneaky implicit claim that someone was endorsing him.

John

Post 88

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 9:11pm

"Still surprised," John? Why? This is all that Certain People live for...as I pointed out early on this thread.

Anyone who continues to go to their sites, pay attention to their obsessive sniping, and engage them in debate, will only feed these trolls' craving for public attention, and thus keep them going.

Post 89

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 10:12pm

The frustrating part is they just keep repeating stuff even after I've refuted it. (And I don't think I've been unclear.)

Post 90

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 10:48pm

Robert, I have a sick fascination.

Phil, do you believe they are trying to understand what you say?

(Edited by John Enright
on 5/22, 10:57pm)

Post 91

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 9:49am

> Phil, do you believe they are trying to understand what you say?

John, I don't know if this is the best phrase to describe it, but I think it's "emotional biasing" for the tiny number of my interlocutor-adversaries (and notice that most of the hundreds of readers of the two threads are not in this category). Diana's piece touched off strong emotions...once they read early in the essay that he (even once) used words like "suck up" to apply to people they respect or hang out with at summer conferences, they saw red (or at least by the time they'd read further and saw some of his other epithets).

Their emotions of outrage and disgust (and the mixing of all this up with other heated matters such as Rand, the Brandens, not liking CMS's approach to Objectivism)

i) prevented them from the need to investigate too much further and moved them to simply accept what seemed --without parsing critically every bit of 13000 words-- to be a strong case from someone they trust,

ii) prevented them from the need to listen with an open mind to someone who comes along and challenges someone they respect and trust not to make major intellectual mistakes - and who has been accused of being a tolerationist or someone who himself doesn't believe in pronouncing moral judgment,

iii) Given i) and ii) and limited time, they feel absolutely no need to expend the energy to go back and do a line by line rereading (or even finish a critical reading for the first time) of Diana's piece in careful analytical mode - analyzing, outlining, summarizing each argument and the evidence provided for it,

iv) Firing off a three sentence post, by contrast, requires only relying on one's memory and a time investment of five minutes...and one is motivated by one's emotions and prior conclusions not to let the adversary 'get away with' an unanswered claim.

The short-circuiting of careful and detailed thinking by emotional reactions is more common than we like to think. And in some cases, it evolved for survival reasons. We have to react on our emotions of fear or anger and flee or confront instantly when faced with a saber-toothed tiger in the wild.

So are they not trying to understand me, this tiny group - I would say yes. But that does not mean evasion. Evasion is not the same thing as having a mental block or seeing red or not thinking it worth your time.

Because you already made up your mind and are no longer open to lengthy reexamination.

----

Second issue: I'm not happy with the term "emotional biasing". Is there a more precise name for the kind of inappropriate use of "seeing red" or emotional overriding of reason of the kind that I think people on Diana's side on this issue are doing? It's not something you normally see as a fallacy in logic books, for example? Is it?

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/23, 10:03am)

Post 92

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 10:45am

Phil, you wrote:

Because you already made up your mind and are no longer open to lengthy reexamination.

Then you asked if there is a better term for that than "emotional bias."

How about the old term "prejudice"?

I see the same emotional source in racism as I do in scapegoating. You target a group of people and hate them, regardless of any "evidence." Those people you argued with (more like "bickered with" to me) have established a new "race" to hate: the people who disagree with Branden bashing.

Now you know what a black man felt like in the past when he argued against a racist, or a Jew against a antisemitic person. Reason was beside the point. It always is with prejudiced people.

Like it or not, there are Objectivists who are irrationally prejudiced. Just look and you can't help but see them.

Michael

Post 93

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 11:59am

Anyone who continues to go to their sites, pay attention to their obsessive sniping, and engage them in debate, will only feed these trolls' craving for public attention, and thus keep them going.

Robert, "they" could just as well spit back the same things at the sites that you go to, with similar-sounding justifications and the partisan-sniping rhetoric. I'm sure that it has occurred to you that there are reasonable as well as unreasonable people at pretty much any website.

Go ahead -- tell Jim Valliant what it is that you don't like about his approach in PARC. Say that you don't even agree with it. But at least be up-front and say it to him, and say why. What I've observed is patience on his part to deal with criticism. He's "demanding" honest, open debate -- not demanding agreement or conformity or threatening to treat you as an outcast if you don't.

Some people are good to deal with; others not so good. I do see plenty of tendencies -- on both "sides" -- to be quick to use language in debates with opponents (or sniping at them, as the case may be) that suggests that their opponent is evading their arguments. In one form or another, some are quick to treat everything as a slight against them. Such persons aren't especially pleasant to deal with, and it's difficult to conduct a discussion with them that doesn't start bogging down in the personal. But my goodness, let's get some thick skins and deal with the substance of criticisms. The assholes will weed themselves out of the reasonable debates. Is there not reasonable debate to be had on the Brandens and their effect on the promotion of Objectivism? TOC gives off the vibe of being a sinking ship with the Brandens most welcome on board with the remaining passengers, and TOC personnel don't seem particularly bothered with this vibe. I'm finding it peculiar that Barbara, for instance, is conspicuous in her absence from all the forums save for one that seems to be cloyingly friendly to her, prompting jokes about her stature in the Objectivist world nowadays. That isn't at all troubling to TOC which invites her as an honored and distinguished speaker?

I'm perfectly fine over at SOLO. Someone remarked that it must not be that nice a place if Fred Weiss posts there. He even posts some extreme shit about the very fact of Sciabarra's work existing. I just brush it off, let him know he's an asshole (we've got some history there on HPO -- it's all in good combative fun), and move on. I have no problem at all letting people there at SOLO know that I participate with JARS, have disagreements with the way some things are done on the "ARI side" (just the same with SOLO's own host, about as independent as they come), haven't bought into the vilification of Sciabarra even if he's made errors in judgment, am perfectly happy to be the torchbearer of lezbo raunch there, and so on.

I sure hope that it has occurred to you that there are good and productive people on each "side" for whom the approach of their "side" is most suited to them. Tara Smith does good work on the "ARI" model, and there are people that do good work on the "JARS" model. They are those that get past the partisan sniping and bickering and get on with the task of promoting ideas. The notion that an entire website from one "side" or another is filled all the way up with people not doing such productive work and not engaging in reasonable debate is just . . . odd.

Maybe your problem is with the "obsessive" personal sniping, period, that gets in the way of productive work carried out by individuals. That's all fine and good, but I don't know why or how that ends up singling out those websites, journals, etc. from one "side" and not the other. And that doesn't mean that the seemingly personal-only stuff isn't done with the promotion of Objectivism in mind -- at least in the minds of good and well-meaning people. It's rather amazing how so many from both "sides" manage to see past one another on things like this. Not everyone is into the personal bickering and meannness; there are some who actually have well-considered reasons having to do with what's best for promoting Objectivism. I'm not even saying that you have to agree in part or whole with those reasons -- but at least it helps to be familiar with those reasons from their vantage point.

Okay, enough preachy stuff for now.

Post 94

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 12:37pm

Chris said:

TOC gives off the vibe of being a sinking ship with the Brandens most welcome on board with the remaining passengers, and TOC personnel don't seem particularly bothered with this vibe.

As one of "the remaining passengers", I don't understand why you think anyone at TOC should be bothered by vibes that you claim to perceive. To mix metaphors: sometimes that "gut feeling" you have is just gas.

I see from your website that you dropped your link to TOC in favor of one to Hsieh's blog. You said:

I had a link here for a few years endorsing The Objectivist Center as representative of open inquiry and intellectual tolerance, but Diana has dissuaded me from the notion that TOC is specifically deserving of mention in this regard. Read her instead.

I post this for two reasons: (1) to let people know "where you're coming from", and (2) to explain why I will not be having any further interactions with you.

Post 95

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 1:09pm

Well, that would be all nice and tolerant of you, Glenn, particularly given that I've never heard of you and you've probably never heard of me up till now, apparently don't know any of my context, or anything else. The NoodleFood link apparently was enough for you to decide not to have anything to do with me. But hey, that's your problem, not mine.

BTW, what's the problem with receiving criticism, especially when TOC has been all too obviously on the decline in recent years? And why would it merit any specific or special mention as a representative of tolerance and open inquiry?

"Where I'm coming from" is not exactly any secret, BTW. It's up on my page of links (and elsewhere on my webpage), which lists resources I find to be strong, from whichever "side." Interesting that you'd pluck the mention of NoodleFood out from the rest, and use that as the evidence of wherever it is that you think that "I'm coming from."

Post 96

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 3:21pm

Chris,

Thanks for the kind word. But, as you can see, "certain people" (to use their own phrase) know all about your motives, and mine, and it's not good news, I'm afraid. You'll probably be just as surprised to learn about your malice as I was to learn about my own!

(Some people live for that kind of stuff!)

Post 97

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 5:03pm

Chris C,

You said to Robert B:

Go ahead -- tell Jim Valliant what it is that you don't like about his approach in PARC. Say that you don't even agree with it. But at least be up-front and say it to him, and say why. What I've observed is patience on his part to deal with criticism. He's "demanding" honest, open debate -- not demanding agreement or conformity or threatening to treat you as an outcast if you don't.

I've previously recommended that Robert B read Mr. Valliant's book, offer a response to it, and encourage others to do likewise. I stand by that recommendation--on the grounds that the more widely The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is read, the more widely it is going to be objected to.

I don't buy the rest of your recommendation, because I've been there and done that.

Mr. Valliant could have decided not to publish a reply to the review of his book in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, for any of a number of reasons. He could have decided not to, because he doesn't like one or more articles that have appeared in JARS. He could have decided not to, because he thinks the work of one or more members of the JARS editorial board is bad. He could have decided not to, because he agrees with the principals of the Ayn Rand Institute in their low estimation of Chris Sciabarra and of JARS. He could even have decided not to, because he wants to support his ally Mr. Perigo, who now looks upon Chris Sciabarra as a personal enemy.

Instead, Mr. Valliant professed to be mortally offended at me, for concluding from his unwillingness to credit any criticism of Ayn Rand's moral character, regardless of its nature or source, that Mr. Valliant in fact believes that Rand was morally perfect. Then he professed to be mortally offended at Chris Sciabarra, for not firing me on account of my alleged insult. Then he professed to be even more offended at Mr. Sciabarra, in the wake of Diana Hsieh's 12,600-word denunciation. It would have been a hell of a lot easier just to say that he had changed his mind.

Mr. Valliant's gesture made up in theatrics for what it lacked by way of rationale. Did he really decide not to submit an article for publication in JARS... because he was offended by Chris Sciabarra's allegedly groundless charge that ARI-affiliated scholars are afraid to publish in JARS? Huh? Mr. Valliant is an ardent defender of every action ever taken by the leadership of ARI. So who would be in a better position than he to disconfirm what he insists are false reports of a de facto prohibition against ARI scholars publishing in JARS--by publishing there and not being struck by lightning for doing it?

You said:

I'm perfectly fine over at SOLO. Someone remarked that it must not be that nice a place if Fred Weiss posts there. He even posts some extreme shit about the very fact of Sciabarra's work existing. I just brush it off, let him know he's an asshole (we've got some history there on HPO -- it's all in good combative fun), and move on.

The problem I have with Fred Weiss is that he is a claqueur. I don't travel with a claque. Neither do you.

People who are serious about ideas and engaged in genuine dialogue ought to be confident in their own arguments and their communicative skills. They shouldn't stand in need of a cheering section. Yet... Mr. Valliant travels with a claque. Ms. Hsieh has acquired a claque, and brought some of it from NoodleFood to SOLOP. Mr. Perigo acquired his own claque during the SOLOHQ days and now maintains what's left of it at SOLOP. There have even been collaborative operations involving multiple claques, like the instant banning of Regi Firehammer from Ms. Hsieh's blog last month.

As far as I'm concerned, SOLOP will become a decent place to discuss ideas when the claqueurs either clean up their act or take their operations somewhere else. A reasonably good heuristic, so far as I am concerned, will be keeping track of what Mr. Weiss does. When he no longer feels comfortable posting at SOLOP, perhaps it will be worth returning to.

Robert Campbell

(Edited by Robert Campbell on 5/23, 5:03pm)

Post 98

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 5:33pm

Chris,

See what I mean?

Post 99

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 8:23pm