The Argument from Intimidation

I must say, in going thru all of this, am detecting a distinct oder of "mein herr comrade" eminating from somewhere...

Post 121

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 1:40pm

I have a purely philosophical question: was it ever actually possible for human beings on earth to have implemented TOC's policy of "Truth and Toleration"? Or was hypocrisy inevitable?

Post 122

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 2:40pm

Justice to Ayn Rand is not served by distorting the historical record. Ayn Rand should be remembered, above all, for her insistence on primacy of existence: the fact that reality is what it is, regardless of anyone's evaluation of its facts. I can think of no worse disservice to the accurate memory of Ayn Rand, than to create (in her name!) an appearance that the historical record is other than it actually was.

Post 123

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 2:54pm

There is a difference between the historical record and products SOLD by the ARI for learning purposes. The record is, IN FACT, preserved, but ARI has no obligation, and probably legitimate legal concerns about SELLING educational materials to which the Brandens contributed without remunerating the Brandens for such sales. Isn't that clear?

Post 124

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 2:56pm

And what a fascinatingly narrow concern for that record.

Post 125

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 3:06pm

I'll grant James Valliant that Ayn Rand should be remembered primarily through her own voice, not the voice of the Brandens [or any other biographer, no matter how objective, this is because everybody filters things through their own perspective]. Fortunately, Ayn Rand left a lot of words, written and oral.

--Brant

Post 126

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 3:45pm

James,

You confuse me now. You said (and it is there):

The "historical record" has been unaffected by removing her voice from those tapes...

Since Barbara was part of that historical event and her voice was removed, then the record certainly was affected. What kind of doublethink is that you are saying?

(I was discussing the product being sold - so you could be technically correct if you were doing your context shifting thing again - see the comment on Casey's correction below).

But then Casey corrects by saying that the historical record is preserved (presumably somewhere) but not sold (and, as is seen, is practically never granted access to by independent scholars and historians).

I will repeat what I stated then. As records of historical accuracy, these products are worth very little.

Then you go on to belittle the concerns of scholars and historians with a sarcastic remark. (That might be fair because I constantly belittle the concerns of lawyers.)

But actually, you belittle the concerns of the public also, because many people are interested in history in a product like that, not just education. The want to have the full event.

Suit yourself, though. I thought your discourse up to now was on a better standard than all this - even with the constant context shifting.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/30, 3:47pm)

Post 127

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 3:47pm

Replying to Roger Bissell, James Vallient wrote,

"Precisely to the extent that you think it important to preserve Ms. Branden's voice, and ultimately for the same reason, others would be motivated to remove it. I do not think that we can say that this is dishonesty or malice, but what they sincerely believe justice requires."

Quite apart from the issue of justice, this kind of doctoring just makes them look obsessive and ridiculous.

Moreover, if they they're going to do something that vindictive, why stop there? Why not remove Nathaniel Branden's name, or better yet, his essays from the contents of _The Virtue of Selfishness_ and _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, and then reissue them under slightly altered titles? Yes, I know, the answer will probably be that the copyright laws forbid it.

In a way, I'm surprised that Peikoff hasn't continued his policy of banning people from his lectures who committed the unpardonable sin of purchasing Branden's books on psychology, lest the vice of "tolerationism" lead one astray.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/30, 3:57pm)

Post 128

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 4:17pm

James Valliant wrote, "...drawing sharp moral lines is a good thing. Moral outrage is sometimes appropriate. A sort of 'shunning' is also sometimes appropriate. One thing I will always draw the line at -- a person who refuses to draw lines at all."

I don't think anyone here is against drawing lines or against passing moral judgment. The problem that I see with Objectivists is the tendency to over-react to disagreements and to differences of opinion. Yes, shunning is sometimes appropriate, but shunning for trivial reasons is not. Overly zealous moral condemnation makes a mockery of moral censure, and debases its value where it is truly warranted.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/30, 4:18pm)

Post 129

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 4:40pm

MSK,

Do you know something the rest of us do not? Have the original tapes been destroyed or something? Will the record of this conversation be destroyed in 60 seconds, Mr. Phelps?

These tapes are not sold as "historical records" but educational products, the value of which is still all there.

Again, what a narrow little concern for the record it seems you really have.

Bill,

Your surprises are frequent with Peikoff, it seems. Post 128 wasn't really necessary. It will depend on one's evaluation of the Brandens, right? And the questions raised here go somewhat deeper.

The question raised about hypocrisy in moral judgments is starting to interest me a lot.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 10/30, 4:57pm)

Post 130

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 4:48pm

James,

You just asked:

Do you know something the rest of us do not?

No, I do not. But you probably do.

Frankly, I find your sarcasm unnecessary to this debate. I am one who does not think sarcasm is a proper defense of double standards.

Cut out a few songs on a DVD of any historical show by a famous artist because of "justice" in eliminating a participant and then find out what a "narrow little concern" the public has. People will scream bloody murder.

Michael

Post 131

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 4:56pm

MSK,

This belief that Ms. Branden was the equivalent of an "artist" performing a show is precisely the kind of comparison that causes valid legal concerns.

Forgive the sarcasm, but I don't see you addressing the issues raised.

Post 132

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 5:04pm

James, you replied to me as follows:

"Your surprises are frequent with Peikoff, it seems. Post 128 wasn't really necessary. The questions raised here go somewhat deeper."

Aside from its sarcasm, the meaning of your comment is a bit unclear. What do you mean, "Post 128 wasn't really necessary," etc. I understand that you may not have the time to write a lengthy reply, but I've noticed that your comments are sometimes so terse and cryptic that I'm not sure what you're getting at.

You write, "The question raised about hypocrisy in moral judgments is starting to interest me a lot." Okay. It's nice to know that it interests you, but was there something else implied here? There's nothing wrong with being explicit; that way, you can know that you're really communicating. :-)

- Bill

Post 133

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 5:09pm

James,

I thought I had addressed the issue (historical accuracy). If you missed my former post on this thread on the reason the Brandens should be included in these things from an historically accurate perspective, I will even include a quote from that post below, discussing the article, "For Whom it May Concern" in the May 1968 issue of The Objectivist and Ayn Rand's own evaluation of their appropriateness in Objectivism.

Then, of course, there is the obvious quote on her sanction of his (and Barbara's) intellectual contribution to Objectivism:
I must state, for the record, that Mr. and Mrs. Branden's writings and lectures up to this time were valid and consonant with Objectivism.

The time she mentions is the moment she asked Nathaniel to remove himself from The Objectivist. Let me repeat those words, because they will not go away: up to that moment, their "writings and lectures" were "valid and consonant with Objectivism." We are talking about years and years of contributions.

Rand's words, not mine.

I presume that the current people in charge of Ayn Rand's estate hold that their own sense of "justice" is far superior to Rand's evaluation on the historical accuracy of the participation of the Brandens in Objectivism.

She specifically said that before she asked Nathaniel to remove himself from The Objectivist, the work of both of the Brandens were "valid and consonant with Objectivism" and, of course, such work was done under her direct supervision and sanction.

Does it really need to be repeated that Ayn Rand did not withdraw such sanction after the break?

That is what the historical accuracy that you find so insignificant means - to me at least.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/30, 5:13pm)

Post 134

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 5:59pm

In reply to James Vallient, I wrote, Aside from its sarcasm, the meaning of your comment is a bit unclear. What do you mean, "Post 128 wasn't really necessary," etc."

I now see that he has edited his remarks after I posted my reply, adding, "It will depend on one's evaluation of the Brandens, right?"

Yes, it will depend on one's evaluation of the Brandens as to whether or not you consider a particular form of moral censure to be appropriate. But I was not confining my remarks to the Brandens. I was speaking about my own personal experiences as well. I have been ostracised from Objectivist functions for patently ridiculous reasons on more than one occasion. What I see here is a kind of pathology of moral condemnation. A case in point is Peikoff's refusal to allow the purchasers of Branden's books to attend his lectures. I was excluded for that very reason. Do you think this was an appropriate response? I think it was a perfect example of what I was talking about in Post 128.

- Bill

Post 135

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:27pm

Bill,

Your reply had not posted when I edited my post. I don't know if there is some delay in your posts coming up. My apologies for any resulting confusion.

Of course I cannot speak to your personal experiences, and the reasons for your previous problems. Nor can I judge the matter with the scant information that you provide. I would also want the other side of any such dispute. (And none of it is relevant to my book.)

I am sorry if I assumed that you had understood the references in the previous posts concerning David Kelley's "Truth and Toleration" (1990). I would ask you to look at page 75 on the importance of the topic of my book. I would ask you to compare this with the current view held by Bidinotto, above.

Both Linz and Mr. Campbell were able to observe the dangers of hypocrisy looming for TOC in this regard.

I hope that this is specific enough.

MSK,

If Rand's sanction so weighs with you, reread the first lines of "To Whom It May Concern," and consider her other actions to remove her previous endorsement of Branden.

But, this is not the issue to which I was referring. (See my response to Bill, above, for that.) There are many posts between the one you mention and your last post.

I do understand all these sour moods upon reviewing those posts, however.

Post 136

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:33pm

Of course I cannot speak to your personal experiences, and the reasons for your previous problems. Nor can I judge the matter with the scant information that you provide. I would also want the other side of any such dispute

.

Of course this statement contradicts your book. Your book is all about speaking to personal experience(s). I suppose you would want the other side as long as their last name was not Branden, and as long as it did not go against the pary line.

Post 137

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:52pm

MSK,

Are we also to ignore all of the events since Rand's 1968 statement?

Jody,

I gave considerable, detailed attention to the Brandens' side. And, in doing so, I am comfortable going outside of any perceived "party line."

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 10/30, 7:53pm)

Post 138

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 8:08pm

James,

It is not a matter of ignoring events from my end. It is from the other end that events (and participants) are being ignored.

But speaking of events, I do have a request in terms of information sharing - not debating.

Please refresh my memory as to what extent Rand herself expunged Nathaniel Branden's work and name from her already published works.

She removed the dedication from Atlas Shrugged.

She removed his definition of "psycho-epistemology" in a parenthetical reference to his article of the same name from her essay, "The Psycho-Epistemology of Art" as it was published in the Objectivist Newsletter (April 1965 - Vol. 4, No. 4) and included a definition of her own when the essay was reprinted in The Romantic Manifesto.

Apparently she also killed publication of The Psychology of Self Esteem at the original publisher as it involved her contact.

What else did she do? (Not Leonard Peikoff, what did Ayn Rand do?)

I'm curious.

Michael

Post 139

Monday, October 31, 2005 - 1:31am