My Takedown of Diana

> You wrestle with girls?
> 'Penelope' (who likes to call Phil a 'slippery fucker')

I didn't expect her to reveal our sexual history...I tried to hold on tight and stay engaged, I really did.

Post 21

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 2:34pm

> You wrestle with girls?
> 'Penelope' (who likes to call Phil a 'slippery fucker')

I didn't expect her to reveal our sexual history...I tried to hold on tight and stay engaged, I really did.

Gee, Phil, I always heard that you didn't sweat much for a fat guy. :-)

REB (still a ways from my ideal weight)

Post 22

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 10:05pm

Roger, I've lost twelve pounds in the last six weeks.

...And I look GOOOOD!!

It's either the running 3 miles to the movie theater and two miles back (don't ask). Or it's the stress of having to mud wrestle with six people at a time over on SoloPassion.

Also, drop kicking them for height and distance really burns up a few of the calories...

Post 23

Tuesday, June 13, 2006 - 11:19pm

Yes, playing with animals does burn up calories...

Post 24

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 5:18pm

I appreciate your post Phil. I cannot get the full context of all of this as I refuse to visit SoloP or NoodleFood. Given what I've heard of this issue here on RoR and Objectivist Living, and now your post, I'm sure I've made the right decision.

Post 25

Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 7:12am

In the still-growing comments thread over at SOLOP, there's been (sigh) another false
statement about the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies:

At

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1129#comment-11091

Mr. Maurone says of one of his essays (note especially the passage I've put in bold):

The essay in question attacked Rand and Objectivism as dogmatic and fascist, and calls for serious reforms in Objectivism. The point of view of the essay was that of a Jungian perspective, which is essentially a Kantian inspired psychology with elements of mysticism dressed up in pseudo-science. (To those who claim that Rand set up Kant as a strawman, take note.) It appeared in print in JARS alongside Slavoj Zizek's work on Rand, who also mentions the Fascist implications of Rand's work, and who he considers "not worthy of serious study" and "ridiculous." Diana saw the essay on line, attacked the idea of Objectivism as Fascist, and said it was symptomatic of "false friends of Objectivism."

Mr. Maurone is confusing an article of his that was published in JARS:

The trickster icon and Objectivism, Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 3(2), 229-258 (Spring 2002)

(yes, in the same issue with Slavoj Zizek)

with an item that appeared only on his now-defunct Jungian Objectivism website, and was never submitted to JARS.

It's the latter item that made the charge of Fascism, and that was singled out by Ms. Hsieh as the work of a "false friend of Objectivism." Ms. Hsieh has never referred to "Trickster Icon" on her blog.

How an author can mix up two different essays of his, neither of which is more than 5 years old, is best left to Mr. Maurone to explain. Maybe after a born-again experience, all of one's past sins seem drearily alike... But Mr. Maurone's statement is obviously false, and needs to be corrected.

Robert Campbell

(Edited by Robert Campbell
on 6/15, 8:57am)

Post 26

Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 4:28pm

Both essays carry the same basic theme, and the Trickster essay is the prelude to the Hero Cycle essay. Both essays appeared on the Jungian Objectivism website.

Post 27

Friday, June 16, 2006 - 5:34am

Mr. Maurone,

Which essay did Ms. Hsieh actually single out for criticism, back in 2004?

Which essay was actually published in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in 2002?

If you want to criticize the contents of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, feel free. But "contents" mean articles published in JARS, or accepted for publication there.

Robert Campbell

Post 28

Friday, June 16, 2006 - 5:44am

The essay was never named by Diana. The excerpts from the article contain themes found in both articles. Feel free to quibble if you must, but don't hide behind a dichotomy of content and abstraction.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 6/16, 6:04am)

Post 29

Friday, June 16, 2006 - 12:15pm

Final thoughts on this subject (hopefully):

I'm wrapping up my debating on SoloP with Diana and her supporters. Those ten? people are too far gone. What has happened since yesterday morning on my thread "Diana's Takedown" on one single issue makes it clear why. I hammered home in multiple posts this point: a discrepancy between Leonard Peikoff's recollection on a single matter and Chris's does not constitute proof that either of them lied. I went -further- and made several posts in which I detailed ways such a discrepancy could quite easily and logically occur. [I left out my own personal experience with Peikoff forgetting, but this would have been overkill.]

Responses I got (to this single issue and the whole debate):

1. Appeal to Authority: "I don't have to know the evidence is conclusive. It comes from people I trust and who could not possibly be wrong (Leonard Peikoff, John Ridpath, Diana Hsieh). And Diana offers evidence from people she and I trust who could not possibly be wrong (ARI students, intellectuals, and conference attendees)." [Fred Weiss and others]
2. Reasoning in a Circle / Begging the Question: "But Chris -deliberately- misrepresented. He lied for several reasons which would make sense of why he would lie. Therefore I don't have to listen to your case. Since I already know he lied, I know that any argument that the evidence he lied is doesn't really prove that can't possibly be true." [Diana leading several others]
3. Changing the Subject: "This is all about Ayn Rand. You are allying yourself with a side which does bad things. That tells us about your character." [Penelope and others]
4. Misuse of Objectivist Buzzwords - Integration: "Well, even if it could be a misunderstanding or misremembering in this case and if Chris was venting or insulting in another case and even if someone really did tell him they were being pressured in a third case, Objectivism believes integration of many separate instances is a virtue. If you add up misremembering + venting + insulting maybe three times in four years that adds up to a massive pattern of systematic, vicious dishonesty." [Penelope, Victor]
5. Misuse of Objectivist Buzzwords - Arbitrary Speculation: "One shouldn't arbitrarily assert something could be possible with zero basis. It's not speculation on Diana's part to claim dishonesty is certain. But it is is arbitrary to claim its possible to misstate or get things wrong or refuse to offer correspondence in their defense." [half a dozen people for several weeks - this piece of sophistry was initiated by Diana, a grad student in philosophy]
6. Loaded Words or Images / Exaggeration by Emotionally "Overloading" the Language: "Chris claims that they're just fearfully goosestepping to the beat of the ARI drum" [Diana's Nazi metaphor, the most recent post on the thread]

.....

The underlying mistake that unifies and explains bizarre mistakes 1-6 by intelligent people is EMOTIONALISM. (I don't think it's dishonesty or evasion.) Can anyone see why I'm suggesting that?

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 6/16, 12:22pm)

Post 30

Friday, June 16, 2006 - 12:41pm

Phil, I swear, just as I clicked on this post to read it, I was thinking about Solopassion, shaking my head and muttering the words "too far gone". Emotionalism is the word. The prejudicial thinking and double-standards are mind-boggling. Can people be Objectivists and not have a shred of objectivity? It looks that way.

And how about those ad hominems? I guess that guy Mark is some kind of anti-Semite? But I found his posts on the Takedown thread over there to be quite reasonable. I think his attacker thinks it's not ad hominem if your charges are true, but it's still ad hominem! Sadly, people are not consistent enough that you can judge that they're wrong about everything just because they're wrong about one thing.

By the way, I am more convinced by Diana's "indictment" of Chris than you are, but still, I feel that I am too distant from the situation and the participants to come to a final and absolute judgment. But I am coming to some conclusions about the futility of argument with people who refuse to be objective.

Post 31

Friday, June 16, 2006 - 5:37pm

Mr. Maurone,

Are any of the quotations in Ms. Hsieh's blog entry

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2004/09/jungian-objectivism.html

from your article on the "Trickster icon"?

Robert Campbell
(Edited by Robert Campbell on 6/16, 6:30pm)

(Edited by Robert Campbell on 6/16, 6:30pm)

Post 32

Friday, June 16, 2006 - 6:00pm

My answer is stated above. And no need to engage with each other, we know where we stand.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 6/16, 6:06pm)

Post 33

Friday, June 16, 2006 - 10:16pm

> I guess that guy Mark is some kind of anti-Semite?

Laure, I have no idea. But I wouldn't trust his SoloP accusers on this matter when they constantly sling ad hominems with little evidence on other matters.

> By the way, I am more convinced by Diana's "indictment" of Chris than you are

Fair enough :-). (There's certainly a lot of separate issues to untangle presented by her).

Phil

By the way, I always enjoy what you have to say. Are you coming to the TOC summer conference? It's a great group of people and a delightful week.
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 6/16, 10:29pm)

Post 34

Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 3:47am

Well...

Maybe a case of my lying could be made of my using an ellipsis in that fashion -- see recent events on SoloP if you wonder what I'm talking about ...

I got around to reading Diana's blog entry linked in Robert Campbell's post 31. No, none of those quotes are in the JARS Trickster article. If Joe wants to claim they are, let him prove it by quoting chapter and verse. This afternoon I refamiliarized myself with the JARS article, and I don't find anything even plausibly like the quoted remarks. Also, judging from the quotes, no, the website article isn't up to the editorial standards applied to the JARS article. The latter had been honed into respectable journal style of presentation and wording through the editorial process.

I nevertheless admit to being of the opinion that the passages quoted by Diana do make a point worth considering, though not well stated, that of asking WHY Rand has so often been accused of fascistic tendencies, if there's anything in Rand's actual words which could lend credence to these accusations.

I think there is such a case to be made, as Joe Maurone hinted in this passage quoted by Diana:

--

[Excerpt]

"Perhaps in order to comprehend the accusations of fascism, it is necessary to look past the political dimension of her ideas and concentrate on what she considered absolute. Although other aspects of her philosophy have been analyzed, it is usually assumed and unquestioned that she was a defender of rationality. But did she truly understand rationality?"

[End Excerpt]

--

My own belief is that there indeed was a point beyond which she lapsed from rationality into a viewpoint of herself as a kind of pronouncer of Ultimate Truth. Doesn't sound to me, however, as if Joe did a good job of presenting this thesis. I never got around to reading the original article on Joe's website before he took the website down. If by chance anyone here has a copy of that original article in full and would be willing to send it to me, please do so (my email address is on my user page).

Ellen

___
(Edited by Ellen Stuttle
on 6/17, 3:52am)

Post 35

Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 9:38am

Ellen,

I alway enjoy reading your posts on the various forums. I like your insight and knowledge and although I haven't been able to get to it yet because of finishing up books on Objectivism, your mentioning of Jung in reference to the Psyche before you left to go to a seminar about him prompted me to dig out my 'Portable Jung" with the introduction by Campbell and put it in my stack of 'to reads'.
It has been around ten years since I last read any in it and I would like to reacquaint myself with his writing on that and other subjects.

I have a definite affinity for Jung due to him having if not what you would call a direct impact in my life, it would surely be a strong indirect one. I am going to read what Joe M wrote in his "Trickster" article submitted to JARS when I can get to it, as it seems to be well written and is a interesting concept

L W.

Post 36

Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 9:57am

Mr. Maurone,

Your latest post at SOLOP

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1129#comment-11395

helps to clear the air.

One small point, though:

THE OBJECTIVIST HERO CYCLE, which Diana quoted, is the continuation of this theme. I don't know Diana's full view on this, since I never asked, at the behest of Chris Sciabarra not to engage with Diana. But he took the attack on the site as an attack on JARS. I took Diana's criticism as the same.

Chris Sciabarra took the piece as directed at JARS for the same reason that I did, when I read it. JARS was never mentioned in Ms. Hsieh's blast at your old blog, but one of her initialed ARI-leaning commentators promptly did that work for her. See RT's remark at

http://www.dianahsieh.com/cgi-bin/blog/comments/view.pl?entry=109621534720992477

Robert Campbell

Post 37

Saturday, June 17, 2006 - 10:03am

Hi Phil,
Not going to the Summer Seminar; maybe next year. See if you can talk them into having it in Tucson (or at least Phoenix!). I enjoy your posts as well. I think I'm going to be posting more frequently here as opposed to SoloP. Because of the vocal minority of posters, it often seems like a barroom brawl over there; I think I'm less likely to be hit by a projectile on RoR! ;-)

Post 38

Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 2:22pm

L. W., I enjoy your perspective, too -- and I got a kick out of your responses to Fred Weiss on the Solo "Takedown of Diana" thread.

A correction about that Jung article to which you referred, "On the Nature of the Psyche." I corrected the original OL post, but I guess you read it before I'd entered the correction.

"On the Nature of the Psyche" isn't in the Campbell-edited volume but instead in The Modern Library's The Basic Writings of C. G. Jung, edited by Violet de Laszlo. However, there are pleny of interesting articles in The Portable Jung, and I think Campbell's introduction is sensitive and informative.

You might also at some point want to read Memories, Dreams, Reflections, which is a compilation of Jung's musings about his life -- not an autobiography but "autobiographical" as to his inner process of development. It gives a good idea of the stages of his thought, and of the sort of person he was.

Regards,

Ellen

___

Post 39

Sunday, June 18, 2006 - 8:49pm