Leonard Peikoff, conservatorship

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

E,

Warning Number 1. Stop trolling or I will limit the number of posts you can make in one day. And if you keep it up, I will moderate you.

You are not the boss of anybody on this forum.

If that doesn't suit you, that's fine.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sorry about the bad vibes, people.

I guess I am losing patience with bullshit, that is gratuitous confrontation and hostility disguised as discussion. Running a forum for years will do that to you. After you have seen the same thing over and over, the thing that never gets any different, never gets any better, and never goes anywhere, but always does a lot of spinning in place wasting everyone's time, and then you see it start up again with someone new, you, that is to say, I, just say, "Fuck it. Not interested."  

(Somehow, I think I could have expressed that in much fewer words.  )

 

Anyway, I have a few thoughts on Objectivism, Communism, Transhumanism, all kinds of isms that promote a utopia in the end with this case in mind. Have you noticed how many times weird and tragic family outcomes are the result with people who are hardcore practitioners?

I have noticed, and I include my own string of failed families as part of it. In earlier times, I got into a mindset that the ideology of Objectivism was so integrated with my emotional life and my outlook on what a family should be, and, by extension, what a woman I loved should be, I lost touch with my inner life. It took a long time to recover my own awareness of me, what I truly felt and thought. 

Don't get me wrong. Objectivism provides a powerful, effective framework for a beautiful worldview if you are into making the most of living on earth as an individual. In fact, Objectivism is my own basic worldview. But it is weak for building communities and families and things like that. There is a reason why Objectivism never became a political party, nor survived as a social organization after NBI closed.

The closest things that have emerged over the years is two main think-tank-like groups, ARI and TAS. And even then, neither are world shapers. Not that they are bad or completely ineffective. They do their thing as best they can. It's just they do not replace fundamental parts of human existence (especially parts that deal with the human species, or with the underbelly of the brain, or a few other things beyond the scope right now). And they can't by the very nature of ignoring this part in the ideology.

O-Land does not have good rituals or serve well activities that other organizations (like churches) do for those other parts of human existence. An Objectivist wedding or funeral, for example, is a poor copy of normal weddings and funerals. This is a long topic that goes well outside the scope right now, so I want to elaborate on this elsewhere.

For now, I am in identify so I can evaluate mode. (It feels an awful lot like finger-pointing mode, too  ).

 

Here's a great example of what I am thinking about from Leonard Peikoff's own pen. He wrote at the beginning of his message on Facebook: "... an assault instigated by my daughter, Kira Peikoff, whom I once loved but no longer can."

What the hell?

How can you stop loving your own daughter?

Is he nuts?

Love, parental love, isn't an on-off switch. It isn't governed by merit or ideology or even a fight. It's basis is biological. Human nature. What's more, human nature as a rational animal, with emphasis on the animal part. Even if you want to emphasize the rational side of that definition, you don't get to a whole human being by amputating the animal part.

Animals have prewired affections and behaviors with their offspring. Primates especially. Humans can override that prewiring, but what the hell kind of a philosophy or code of values holds overriding it as good and virtuous when you force yourself to stop loving your own daughter?

 

This goes straight to the heart of my current issue with utopic thinking. It does not take biology into account within human nature. I know, I know... I've been through it all in Objectivism. Individualism, responding to your highest values, reason, etc., etc., etc. But just look at the mess Rand made with her own family life.

Pretty words and not so pretty actions.

I just can't ignore reality anymore. 

 

An author (a rather weird one  ) named Howard Bloom, wrote a few books on evolution and made it clear that species, not individuals, are the things that evolve in nature. Species. Human species. I suppose individual members of different species can evolve a little, but they come with random changes when they are born, and they change as part of their nature as they grow and live, and, when they reproduce, they pass some of these changes onto their offspring. That's how evolution works for the most part.

This is a long topic. We have addressed it elsewhere on OL (just use the search function with the term Bloom to see some interesting ideas), and I am sure we will discuss it more. But later.

 

I try to imagine what Kira's life was like as she grew up with a father who placed his ideology over her. I have no doubt he loved her. But things start getting weird with ideologues when their children start learning to speak, start testing them and start taking their first steps into rebellion and individuation. We have nothing here in O-Land that gives any kind of guidance for this.

Then Kira goes to college and gets blasted with both barrels of indoctrination from Marxist professionals--all who tell her that the beliefs of her family are things of "another generation." All while working her head overtime as a young woman. These assholes do young women well, too. I know this for a fact.

I've seen it up close with my own step-daughter. I rarely feel helpless, but watching the indoctrination from school take in her head as time went on, watching my own tools and processes to counter it bounce off her as the woke ideology took hold, was painful.

I can only imagine the frustration Leonard Peikoff must have felt at times seeing something similar with Kira. And he is not a person to stay quiet when he feels wronged. So I can imagine her reactions to his honking and the growing friction as time went on.

 

Here is another thing I observe. Has anyone noticed how well Trump's children have turned out? That man knew how to be a father, and a great one at that. We can talk about why and how later. For now, I just want to say look over there and see it. He knew how to do it. I did not. And apparently, Peikoff did not, either.

Are we to ignore this as we go about preaching to others about "a philosophy for living on earth?"

 

I now have a family I love, but it is not in any Objectivist mold. I had to work at it to get my current family solid before time took the opportunity away from me forever. It's all about love and I would defend it to my death if it were attacked. Even then, I have two sons in Brazil that I have little contact with left over as a legacy of how I used to think. I still have to fix that and I intend to as I bump and grind family learning along. 

At least there is this inside my soul. I can't imagine expressing, much less feeling, that I don't love my kids anymore.

I don't respect values that promote this. 

 

So, in my own way, I will be building something with my Objectivist worldview, but something that adds normal human values to the foundation, then building individual reason-based heroism on top of that. I don't know what form this will take, but I know me. I am bent on building something like that and I will get it done.

 

As to Kira Peikoff, I don't know her. But if I ever did meet her, I would giver her one main piece of advice if she would listen: Your kids watch you. They are watching you all the time.

They see what she is doing to her own father, so she should not be surprised if they turn out thinking this is the right and good way to be. Then do the same thing (or similar) to her when the time comes.

She herself watched her father all her life. And look what she did.

This is not the way loving families are supposed to end up.

 

Granted, humans can be a mess at doing families in general. But, as this case shows, Objectivism is not the cure. This needs more to get it right.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As a follow-up, Schott Schiff posted on Facebook a comment from Kira from another source (see here).

I'm quoting Scott's part below in addition to Kira's part. 

Quote

UPDATE: A source did get a response back from Leonard's daughter Kira...

"Thank you for your concern. This is a private family matter that will be determined by a judge, not the court of public opinion. All I will say is that my father’s statement is libel, and contains many mistruths about me. He neglected to mention that his new wife is a nurse caregiver who was hired from an agency and that she has used controlling tactics to influence him and isolate him from his entire family, many friends, and longtime professionals. We will go to trial in March. As one example, he purchased the $3.7M house in secrecy and quitclaimed the deed to her (this is public record) before there was any marriage, while she was drawing a salary from him as a caregiver. This is in violation of CA probate codes which consider such asset transfers to caregivers to be presumptive fraud."
----

I thought I should follow-up with her side of the story.

As you can see, this is ugly.

I have talked about this in terms of family values, Ayn Rand's copyrights, the Objectivist philosophy, and so on. And that's the extent of my interest. They are public people and this affects me through the philosophy I adopted for my life, so I am commenting.

But as to the he-said, she-said part, I want no part of it. I'm not even all that interested in the court documents.

May Leonard Peikoff and his daughter Kira come to some kind of understanding and be well. That's what I wish for them.

 

I have to admit, though, that I am ticked that a perfect stranger, an American judge, will make the decision for them. What makes that judge any wiser than those two? American probate law? Heh. After an American judge gets through with that, well... you know...

From what I have seen of the court system over the last few decades, modern American judges suck.

Michael

[Strictlylogical]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Sorry about the bad vibes, people.

I guess I am losing patience with bullshit, that is gratuitous confrontation and hostility disguised as discussion. Running a forum for years will do that to you. After you have seen the same thing over and over, the thing that never gets any different, never gets any better, and never goes anywhere, but always does a lot of spinning in place wasting everyone's time, and then you see it start up again with someone new, you, that is to say, I, just say, "Fuck it. Not interested."  

(Somehow, I think I could have expressed that in much fewer words.  )

 

Anyway, I have a few thoughts on Objectivism, Communism, Transhumanism, all kinds of isms that promote a utopia in the end with this case in mind. Have you noticed how many times weird and tragic family outcomes are the result with people who are hardcore practitioners?

I have noticed, and I include my own string of failed families as part of it. In earlier times, I got into a mindset that the ideology of Objectivism was so integrated with my emotional life and my outlook on what a family should be, and, by extension, what a woman I loved should be, I lost touch with my inner life. It took a long time to recover my own awareness of me, what I truly felt and thought. 

Don't get me wrong. Objectivism provides a powerful, effective framework for a beautiful worldview if you are into making the most of living on earth as an individual. In fact, Objectivism is my own basic worldview. But it is weak for building communities and families and things like that. There is a reason why Objectivism never became a political party, nor survived as a social organization after NBI closed.

The closest things that have emerged over the years is two main think-tank-like groups, ARI and TAS. And even then, neither are world shapers. Not that they are bad or completely ineffective. They do their thing as best they can. It's just they do not replace fundamental parts of human existence (especially parts that deal with the human species, or with the underbelly of the brain, or a few other things beyond the scope right now). And they can't by the very nature of ignoring this part in the ideology.

O-Land does not have good rituals or serve well activities that other organizations (like churches) do for those other parts of human existence. An Objectivist wedding or funeral, for example, is a poor copy of normal weddings and funerals. This is a long topic that goes well outside the scope right now, so I want to elaborate on this elsewhere.

For now, I am in identify so I can evaluate mode. (It feels an awful lot like finger-pointing mode, too  ).

 

Here's a great example of what I am thinking about from Leonard Peikoff's own pen. He wrote at the beginning of his message on Facebook: "... an assault instigated by my daughter, Kira Peikoff, whom I once loved but no longer can."

What the hell?

How can you stop loving your own daughter?

Is he nuts?

Love, parental love, isn't an on-off switch. It isn't governed by merit or ideology or even a fight. It's basis is biological. Human nature. What's more, human nature as a rational animal, with emphasis on the animal part. Even if you want to emphasize the rational side of that definition, you don't get to a whole human being by amputating the animal part.

Animals have prewired affections and behaviors with their offspring. Primates especially. Humans can override that prewiring, but what the hell kind of a philosophy or code of values holds overriding it as good and virtuous when you force yourself to stop loving your own daughter?

 

This goes straight to the heart of my current issue with utopic thinking. It does not take biology into account within human nature. I know, I know... I've been through it all in Objectivism. Individualism, responding to your highest values, reason, etc., etc., etc. But just look at the mess Rand made with her own family life.

Pretty words and not so pretty actions.

I just can't ignore reality anymore. 

 

An author (a rather weird one  ) named Howard Bloom, wrote a few books on evolution and made it clear that species, not individuals, are the things that evolve in nature. Species. Human species. I suppose individual members of different species can evolve a little, but they come with random changes when they are born, and they change as part of their nature as they grow and live, and, when they reproduce, they pass some of these changes onto their offspring. That's how evolution works for the most part.

This is a long topic. We have addressed it elsewhere on OL (just use the search function with the term Bloom to see some interesting ideas), and I am sure we will discuss it more. But later.

 

I try to imagine what Kira's life was like as she grew up with a father who placed his ideology over her. I have no doubt he loved her. But things start getting weird with ideologues when their children start learning to speak, start testing them and start taking their first steps into rebellion and individuation. We have nothing here in O-Land that gives any kind of guidance for this.

Then Kira goes to college and gets blasted with both barrels of indoctrination from Marxist professionals--all who tell her that the beliefs of her family are things of "another generation." All while working her head overtime as a young woman. These assholes do young women well, too. I know this for a fact.

I've seen it up close with my own step-daughter. I rarely feel helpless, but watching the indoctrination from school take in her head as time went on, watching my own tools and processes to counter it bounce off her as the woke ideology took hold, was painful.

I can only imagine the frustration Leonard Peikoff must have felt at times seeing something similar with Kira. And he is not a person to stay quiet when he feels wronged. So I can imagine her reactions to his honking and the growing friction as time went on.

 

Here is another thing I observe. Has anyone noticed how well Trump's children have turned out? That man knew how to be a father, and a great one at that. We can talk about why and how later. For now, I just want to say look over there and see it. He knew how to do it. I did not. And apparently, Peikoff did not, either.

Are we to ignore this as we go about preaching to others about "a philosophy for living on earth?"

 

I now have a family I love, but it is not in any Objectivist mold. I had to work at it to get my current family solid before time took the opportunity away from me forever. It's all about love and I would defend it to my death if it were attacked. Even then, I have two sons in Brazil that I have little contact with left over as a legacy of how I used to think. I still have to fix that and I intend to as I bump and grind family learning along. 

At least there is this inside my soul. I can't imagine expressing, much less feeling, that I don't love my kids anymore.

I don't respect values that promote this. 

 

So, in my own way, I will be building something with my Objectivist worldview, but something that adds normal human values to the foundation, then building individual reason-based heroism on top of that. I don't know what form this will take, but I know me. I am bent on building something like that and I will get it done.

 

As to Kira Peikoff, I don't know her. But if I ever did meet her, I would giver her one main piece of advice if she would listen: Your kids watch you. They are watching you all the time.

They see what she is doing to her own father, so she should not be surprised if they turn out thinking this is the right and good way to be. Then do the same thing (or similar) to her when the time comes.

She herself watched her father all her life. And look what she did.

This is not the way loving families are supposed to end up.

 

Granted, humans can be a mess at doing families in general. But, as this case shows, Objectivism is not the cure. This needs more to get it right.

Michael

I may have mentioned this before, but I have a friend who formerly called himself an Objectivist, and who now harbours a kind of disdain for it as one would have for a person after a betrayal.  It’s as though in the process of going deep and going through it he had a sense it would be some kind of answer for…  well everything… disappointed and disillusioned he will in one moment quip about how arrogant and robotic he feels some explanation in O-land would be, but then in the next breath he would rely upon a foundational tenet of the philosophy as a given in discussion.

Although I understand where he is coming from, my journey was a little different and I have survived my dive through O-land mostly unscathed.. and have come out the other side a true believer in the core philosophy of Objectivism proper.  I have also gained a very healthy skepticism for the application of that core philosophy by anyone (prominent Objectivists included) to wider and wider circles of contextual reality which require perception, gathering, and integration of greater and greater complex information.

This is where I find my peace with seeing people’s fumbles foibles and bumbling.  Philosophy is not a special science of any kind, as a foundation for knowledge it makes all the sciences possible: it is the study of the process and validation of study itself. The mistakes of its application and attempted projection of ramifications in a complex human world are understandable.

So I do not believe Objectivism is the solution to all, not to physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, culture, society, politics… it can only form the guard rails for the freedoms and substantial work which must be done within any of these … but not because Objectivism is an empty philosophy but because that’s just the limit of any proper philosophy and I happen to believe at its core it is the correct philosophy.

I understand my friend’s desire for something more, and of course all of human life and flourishing requires sooooo much more, but laying blame at the feet of a philosophy, which perhaps promised to be more than a philosophy, asks too much.

What I hear is that you are moving beyond philosophy, not abandoning it or leaving anything unresolved, just getting on with using it as a tool to get at the rest of the good stuff in life …and I wholeheartedly agree with and encourage that approach.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

9 minutes ago, Strictlylogical said:

What I hear is that you are moving beyond philosophy, not abandoning it or leaving anything unresolved, just getting on with using it as a tool to get at the rest of the good stuff in life …and I wholeheartedly agree with and encourage that approach.

S,

That's well said.

Maybe I wouldn't use the word "beyond," but I know exactly what you mean.

Life is the fundamental value, not philosophy. What's more, life is the fundamental value while being the standard of value.

If I wanted to be a smartass with the word "beyond," I would say the problem is going "beyond philosophy," which is easy to do in Objectivism due to Rand's storytelling prowess. The thing is to come back to life.

Philosophy will not make anyone a god.

When it's good, it works well to help people use their brains, analyze nature in all its forms (including one's own), and make choices.

 

Michael

[Aaron]

Thanks for the further info, MSK. Sounds ugly.

I'm starting to hope this ends up one of those cases where any wealth gets left to a chihuahua or goldfish.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can't resist putting this here from another thread written in 2021:

On 4/28/2021 at 5:55 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I want to mention something I found quite interesting. I like to read Kira Peikoff's books. She comes from our subculture and she's making it on the commercial market as a writer. She's getting better as a mystery/thriller writer as she goes along and it's a pleasure to see her grow. Her characters are still a bit undeveloped and two dimensional, but she's getting better and she's doing it. She's out there doing it. She's got my respect.

Here is something about her latest book I wrote to a friend the other day.

 

In that particular post in that particular thread, the quote function went into overdrive. So here is what I wrote to my friend with the quote from Kira's book formatted in a different manner and far, far, far easier to read. My bold in the Kira quote.

 

QUOTE FROM ME TO A FRIEND:

I recently read Kira Peikoff's novel, Mother Knows Best. In it, one of the heroes is a child who has escaped forced confinement in a basement and run out into the world. She encounters a stranger who helps her. Here is a direct quote from the novel:

 

QUOTE FROM MOTHER KNOWS BEST

The drive takes less than ten minutes, and my new friend is nice enough to share a PowerBar and some water with me. I’m so grateful I almost cry. Maybe it’s because of all I’ve been through, not knowing who I can trust, but her kindness hits me hard. When I grow up, I want to be just like her: a person who will help others in need.

END QUOTE FROM MOTHER KNOWS BEST

 

How's them apples?

In Kira's context, that is one hell of a premise to check in the way she just did.

I wonder what her father thinks...

END QUOTE FROM ME TO A FRIEND

 

You know, I'm only quoting that in this context to be a brat, right?

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

LP made one huge intellectual and moral professional mistake and it wasn't taking Rand's side during the break of 1968. It was appointing himself conservator of Objectivism after her death .

For me the irony is overwhelming 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

LP made one huge intellectual and moral professional mistake and it wasn't taking Rand's side during the break of 1968. It was appointing himself conservator of Objectivism after her death .

For me the irony is overwhelming 

Brant,

I think Peikoff's "huge intellectual and moral professional mistake" is more personal and came before. I think he should have published The Ominous Parallels when Rand was alive. The fact that he published it right after she died (it was as soon as he could) showed how hungry he was to get his book out there.

But he did not want to do anything without her permission.

He treated his conservatorship of Objectivism in like manner for the most part. Worse, he surrounded himself with people who knew how to manipulate his insecurity. (Later, look how they even changed The Ominous Parallels.  )

That's one hell of a monkey to have on your back. One hell of a storm to live through. And still he produced good things.

I give him full credit for that.

(I'm an achievement guy at heart.  )

 

Here's a personal story.

When I was back in Brazil and The Ominous Parallels first came out, I got it, devoured it and wrote him one of those idiotic syrupy "thank you for being alive" letters. (I actually did that.  ) His secretary at the time, I no longer remember her name, wrote me back saying that he was too busy to read all the letters sent to him, but thanks anyway. Also, maybe I would like to read... then she listed a few articles by Rand I had read several times.

I wanted to be part of something good back then. And I was told I was not, with the implication I would not be.

That's when I distanced myself from him.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Barbara Wiseman?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

54 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Barbara Wiseman?

Brant,

Maybe. But that doesn't sound right.

It was a long time ago, before the turn of the century.

Before I came back to the US.

Before I personally knew anybody we both know (although I had heard of a few back then). All I knew of Barbara at that time was that picture on the back of "Who Is Ayn Rand?" I have talked about elsewhere. And what she wrote in that book.

Also, my papers from that time, including many music compositions, a play I wrote, etc., have scattered to the wind.

That's what you get from living dangerously.

 

Michael

[anthony]

Can I rehash an old sticking point here? I'm missing something. How did ARI (and the ARU!) even get going, in contravention to Rand's categorical statement?

From Mark's "ARI Watch":

From “A Statement of Policy” (The Objectivist, June 1968):

“I regard the spread of Objectivism through today’s culture as an intellectual movement – i.e. a trend among independent individuals who share the same ideas – but not as an organized movement. … Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone. … I shall not establish or endorse any type of school or organization purporting to represent or be a spokesman for Objectivism.  I shall repudiate and take appropriate action against any attempt to use my name or my philosophy, explicitly or implicitly, in connection with any project of that kind or any organization not authorized by me.”

[Brant Gaede]

On 9/13/2024 at 4:07 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Maybe. But that doesn't sound right.

It was a long time ago, before the turn of the century.

Before I came back to the US.

Before I personally knew anybody we both know (although I had heard of a few back then). All I knew of Barbara at that time was that picture on the back of "Who Is Ayn Rand?" I have talked about elsewhere. And what she wrote in that book.

Also, my papers from that time, including many music compositions, a play I wrote, etc., have scattered to the wind.

That's what you get from living dangerously.

 

Michael

Might be Elayne Kalberman. 

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

The K, L an B are tickling something in my brain.

It might have been her.

I can't say for sure, but that sounds good.

Michael

 

[Economic]

“I regard the spread of Objectivism through today’s culture as an intellectual movement – i.e. a trend among independent individuals who share the same ideas – but not as an organized movement. … Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone. … I shall not establish or endorse any type of school or organization purporting to represent or be a spokesman for Objectivism.  I shall repudiate and take appropriate action against any attempt to use my name or my philosophy, explicitly or implicitly, in connection with any project of that kind or any organization not authorized by me.”

 

That didn't age well.

[Economic]

>"It’s as though in the process of going deep and going through it he had a sense it would be some kind of answer for…  well everything"

That's how Objectivism was presented to audience members at LennyP's lectures on philosophy in the 1970s. And when he read a written question on whether the mass adoption of Objectivism by intellectuals in the past would've saved mankind from the ills it suffered in the 20th century (world wars, genocides, hyperinflations, hippie movements, ugly art, etc., ad infinitum), Ayn Rand — sitting in the audience and holding hands with Frank O'Connor — loudly proclaimed "Yes!" while Lenny was still thinking how to answer the question. The audience found it charming, and laughed politely.

It's been a while since I've listened to the taped lectures by Branden, but I seem to remember that Objectivism was presented in a similar manner: if not an actual, pre-digested answer to "big questions" about life, it was at least a reliable "framework" for coming up with the answers. It isn't. The infantile infighting of former inner-circle members — George Reisman, Edith Packer, Allan Blumenthal, Joan Mitchell Blumenthal, Robert Hessen, Bea Hessen, Robert Efron, Edith Efron, Murray Rothbard, David Kelley, not to mention Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, among others — most of whom were excommunicated for not being plumb-bob Objectivists — provides a classic object-lesson on how impractical Objectivism really is. Where the philosophy is generally correct (reason as a tool of acquiring knowledge; truth as correspondence with reality; private property as an important organizing institution for a productive, peaceful society, etc.) it merely overlaps many other past philosophies, or restates what was stated earlier. Where Objectivism attempts originality (e.g., induction is some sort of "big problem" needing to be solved; concepts as "units"), it's either vapid or incorrect.

Finally, both before Rand died and after, Lenny often said that if only he had complete control over the curriculum of university philosophy departments, he could turn society around in a generation. In retrospect, the statement reeks of cult-like megalomania, along with an unrealistic appraisal of the importance of university philosophy departments.

>"This is where I find my peace with seeing people’s fumbles foibles and bumbling. "

That statement would naturally include Ayn Rand's fumbles, foibles, and bumbling, which includes at least some of her philosophy, if not actually large swathes of it.

>"Philosophy is not a special science of any kind, as a foundation for knowledge it makes all the sciences possible:

Brief digression: a strong case can be made for western religions as being the intellectual foundation for all the sciences; i.e., the purely religious sentiment that an omnipresent creator of the universe was rational, ergo, the universe is rationally organized, capable of being grasped by man's rational faculty.

>The mistakes of its application and attempted projection of ramifications in a complex human world are understandable.

Many ex-Objectivists would disagree that mistakes in their lives were caused by "mistakes in application" of an otherwise perfect philosophy. They would assert that mistakes were caused by a consistent application of the philosophy itself. In other words, it wasn't "pilot error" on their part; it was mechanical failure of the philosophy itself.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

E,

I have a far more favorable view of Objectivism than you do, but I sure as hell hear you.

I'm not going to criticize anything you said because you speak truth. Going just by your words above, and with the exception of a few details, I think, at root, we disagree on degree, not kind. 

I might get bashed for saying this, but I don't care. I don't speak from opinion.

I speak from living it.

I earned it the hard way.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just to be clear, and getting away from the political bickering of Rand's progeny, I did it my way.

I find Objectivism to be a good solid worldview to start from in how to use your brain and soul as complements, not adversaries. But to use Objectivism as the main plan for living human life in all its different complexities, and for large groups of human beings at that, it needs to be supplemented.

Also, some ideas need to be reevaluated. For just one example, scope needs to be readjusted for several claims. (And, yes, I can name them--I am not doing so here in order to stay on point.)

But all-in-all, any system of ideas that upholds individual freedom, reason, free trade, nonviolence as the norm, integrity, and so on is good at root. I refuse to throw away what I strove so hard to acquire in Objectivism--a worldview that gives me certainty in times when I need it. Also, original stories and myths. One of the best hidden benefits I received was learning what questions to ask in the beginning--at least a good deal of them.

I am working on finding out how to make all this work in practice, not just in theory or blind obedience.

I mean, why not?

I became me this way.

 

Michael

[Economic]

On 9/19/2024 at 1:49 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

E,

I have a far more favorable view of Objectivism than you do, but I sure as hell hear you.

Thanks, MSK! Truly appreciate that!

By the way, have you seen any of this recent video of LP interviewed by James Valliant:

At ~35:38 the current Mrs. Peikoff (Grace Davis) pops her head into frame and gives "El Jefe" a brief peck on the lips. Gold-digger? Nah. Nothing to see here, folks. Move right along . . .

I was surprised by the frailty of LP's condition. At 91, his speech is slurred; he's missing several front teeth; and he's wearing an oxygen canula, probably attached to a portable O2-concentrator. Did he have a stroke sometime recently? I don't remember him having been a smoker. The last time I heard LP speak was in the early 1990s when he hosted a radio talk-show on a local SoCal station on the AM dial. At the time, he sounded exactly as I remembered from his live lectures 20 years earlier, with AR and her husband in the audience. But now . . .!

 

[Economic]

On 9/19/2024 at 2:13 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

a worldview that gives me certainty in times when I need it.

Understood. But this might be one of those disagreements on degree you mentioned previously.

I don't hanker after "certainty" since I don't think it exists outside of the narrow confines of mathematics and deductive logic. I find Karl Popper instructive on this. I am comfortable holding ideas about the value of individual freedom, reason, capitalism, etc., with the proverbial "light touch"; meaning, I'm ready to change my views *if* someone else can plausibly falsify them by presenting evidence to the contrary. So I find Popper's insights regarding "falsification" vs. "verification" enlightening, as well as freeing, since I think they encourage tolerance for other ideas without the constant imperative to do battle with them ("one must constantly judge" as Old Guard Objectivists would insist) in order to "defeat" them as being evil. As an object lesson in this: Whatever one might think about some of the kooks in today's "Libertarian Movement," it is a sobering fact that with its loose, "Big Umbrella" approach to acceptance of many ideas, as long as they are broadly supportive of individual freedom, it has grown tremendously since the 1980s, while the original "Objectivist Movement" (as many thought of it during the giddy days of NBI)  has shrunk precipitously since AR's demise in 1982. The only nod of support in the direction of tolerance seems to be the appearance of Kelley's Atlas Society and its revealing schism with the orthodoxy of Peikoff's ARI.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Economic said:

By the way, have you seen any of this recent video of LP interviewed by James Valliant

E,

Valliant?

Oh Lord.

I haven't needed that much punishment in a while.

 

Besides, I fear I may become impotent if I see too much of that guy. Talk about a soul-suck. The virtue of the pedantic mixed with the boring, peppered with random ticks of random emotions. 

 

 

On another point, I am not too big on Popper. He's all right for propositions, and even then, I have some serious disagreements. For example, his notion of what a definition is. And other things. Too long for discussing here.

When it comes to reality, I find that Popper did a switcheroo between proposition and reality. Instead of the primacy of reality, it's the primacy of the proposition.

Let's put it this way. Popper's ideas only come to life and apply to reality after written language came into being. Up to that point, if I go by falsification (for just one example), human beings would have never been able to accumulate enough knowledge about reality for the species to survive, much less evolve. They simply did not have propositions to derive reality from.  

 

In my studies on story and narrative alongside neuroscience and modern psychology, I came across a fascinating observation about how two main kinds of neurons process information. It comes from a scientist at Ohio State University, Angus Fletcher. His specialties are neuroscience, story and literature. He trains soldiers at DARPA with the practical application of his conclusions.

In short, there are sensory input neurons, which only process in the present. And motor neurons (for muscle action among other things), which process abstractions in the past, present and future. (This last is where story comes from.) I'm not talking about the referents they process, although there is some of that, but the actual processing itself.

There are other kinds of neurons, too, including a kind of bridge between the two. But when making a universal "one size fits all" standard for judging truth and certainty, I find philosophers always opt for one or the other and, even then, make a mess of it. I include Popper among them. (And Rand, for that matter. She's one of the best storytellers out there--she really is a much better fiction writer that the left likes to portray, but the story process does not find its way into her theory of concepts other than some things about causality and law of identity as axioms at root.)

This is too long to discuss here, but I am willing to discuss it elsewhere and, maybe, find things here on OL where I cite sources and summaries of ideas.

 

I have a real beef about Popper on politics. It's his idea called Open Society. This has caused an enormous amount of mischief in the world after Soros put big bucks behind it. My main beef is that it is not based on human nature, just on propositions (ironically  ). Once again, too long and too outside the scope of this thread, so I'm just mentioning it if you are ever interested.

I don't want to diss someone you admire, but this is a forum for discussing ideas...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

On 9/17/2024 at 3:59 PM, Economic said:

“I regard the spread of Objectivism through today’s culture as an intellectual movement – i.e. a trend among independent individuals who share the same ideas – but not as an organized movement. … Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone. … I shall not establish or endorse any type of school or organization purporting to represent or be a spokesman for Objectivism.  I shall repudiate and take appropriate action against any attempt to use my name or my philosophy, explicitly or implicitly, in connection with any project of that kind or any organization not authorized by me.”

 

That didn't age well.

And it didn't out of the box  it was a repudiation of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden after her falling out with them or, stay away from them. Thus began the cultural decline of Objectivism. I mean college students were bringing Rand right into the classroom in the 1960s thanks to the NBI. They profs had a hard time dealing with it. I directly experienced this back from Vietnam in 1967. I was in NYC in 1968 and saw the blowup first hand 

--Brant

PS: I said cultural, not intellectual. NBI was not an intellectual force. That was a facade. So was Galt's speech which took Rand two years to write. Rand was engaged in cultural warfare primarily with literary means. It's not morality it's moralizing mostly contra Christianity but no better for longevity as such than Shakerism. Rand said if you consciously make one wrong moral choice you are doomed  Period. It's only a matter of time. Christianity is about salvation and redemption. Rand's huge brain thought rationality would beat that insofar as she ever thought that. 

[Economic]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

>>>I fear I may become impotent if I see too much of that guy. Talk about a soul-suck. The virtue of the pedantic mixed with the boring, peppered with random ticks of random emotions.

Please. . . tell us how you really feel. 

>>>  I am not too big on Popper. He's all right for propositions, and even then, I have some serious disagreements. For example, his notion of what a definition is. And other things. Too long for discussing here.

Not completely sure what you have in mind here. Happy to discuss further on a new thread, if your time and interest permit.

Regarding definitions:

Don't recall everything he wrote about the subject, but I do recall a bit of what many Aristotelian-influenced Scholastics from the Middle Ages wrote about it, when attempting to organize and codify what remained of Aristotle's "crabbed lecture notes." Viz.,

A formal definition comprises two hierarchical categories; a genus, and a differentia. The differentia cannot be plural; it must be singular; i.e., it must be the ONE characteristic or property that makes something uniquely different from closely related things that coexist with it in the larger group known as the "genus." Thus, "rational" has served well as the single differentia demarcating the one essential difference between "man" and the larger, more inclusive genus of "animal."

Sounds OK to me. But as the Scholastics point out, it suffices because we have a consciousness (an "inside") that allows us to make that assessment through direct introspection. So we can confidently state that the formal definition of "Man" is "Rational Animal" (differentia / genus). So far, so good.

Formal definitions of geometric shapes are also possible: a "Triangle" is a "3-sided, closed 2-D shape." "3-sided" is the differentia; "closed 2-D shape" is the genus. "3-sidedness" is the one characteristic demarcating "triangle" from any other closed, 2-D shape included in the genus. 

 But there's a problem when trying formally to define something like "dog," "cat," "stone," "cloud," "planet," etc., since we cannot ever confidently state that there's a single property or characteristic that makes a "puppy" uniquely different from a "non-puppy" (I seem to remember Popper uses the example of trying to define "puppy" while critiquing the Aristotelian idea of searching for an essential "puppiness" that acts as the single, logical differentia). The Scholastics claimed that what we really do logically when trying to define something like "dog" is to list all of the characteristics — **as far as we know, based on the state of our empirical knowledge** – of "dogs" as we continue to come across them, time and time again, one after the other. We might, I suppose, call these lists "informal definitions" as opposed to the "formal definitions" of "man," "triangle," et al., but they would've objected. According to them these are just more-or-less complete *Descriptions*, and the more we discover empirically about the thing called "dog," the fuller the description becomes, and the better we become at discerning any possible "borderline" instances of "dog" from "not-dog."

I basically agree with that position. It's not unique to Popper but was the main position of the entire Scholastic school in the Middle Ages, which included, of course, St. Thomas, Peter Abelard, and many others. A fine restatement of the medieval Scholastic position can be found in the treatise on the subject by the 20th-century Scholastic philosopher, Jacques Maritain, titled "Petite Logique", loosely translated as "Minor Logic" (i.e., Deductive Logic).

Finally, since science has, in fact, made progress since its start — more or less at the time of Galileo's "hypothesis-experiment" ideas regarding a scientific method of investigation — it's clear that scientific progress (including applied science in the form of technology), economic progress, and social progress), do not require "exact, precise, logical definitions" of their subject matters in terms of a logical genus cleaved by a single, logical differentia. Progress simply requires more inclusive descriptions of things, and the political freedom to investigate, inquire, criticize, and act on the results. 

Always interested in enlarging the discussion at some point, perhaps on a different thread.

>>> It comes from a scientist at Ohio State University, Angus Fletcher.

Don't know him, but sounds interesting and will investigate. However, I follow another scientist formerly at Ohio State University named Pierre-Marie Robitaille, a radiologist who originally specialized in MRI technology. Back in the 1990s, he began to think about the electromagnetic spectrum and the state of solar physics. At the time, it was thought that the sun was a "ball of gas" undergoing fusion. He pointed out a big problem with that model: hot gases do not emit continuous spectra. The sun's spectral emission is continuous; ergo, it cannot simply be a "ball of hot gas." He points out that the sun also cannot be simply a "ball of hot plasma," since the temperature of the sun's outer sphere is not hot enough to be a plasma. He hypothesizes, instead, that the sun is "liquid metallic hydrogen," a state of hydrogen originally theorized back in the 1930s, and which (I believe) has been experimentally achieved on a very small scale more recently. He's quite interesting, and many of the supportive comments on his videos seem to be from professional astronomers and physicists. Personally, I like the idea of the sun (and by implication, stars in general) as being a kind of "hot liquid." Must be the romantic in me.

>>>It's his idea called Open Society. This has caused an enormous amount of mischief in the world after Soros put big bucks behind it. 

Could be wrong about this but my understanding is that back in the day, Soros attended some lectures by Popper at the London School of Economics and decided to name his own (obviously Deep State) foundation after Popper's 2-volume work on politics. Aside from that, I don't think Sir Karl had anything to do with Soros or his foundation. I'm not even sure they knew each other personally or met at any time.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 hours ago, Economic said:

By the way, have you seen any of this recent video of LP interviewed by James Valliant:

At ~35:38 the current Mrs. Peikoff (Grace Davis) pops her head into frame and gives "El Jefe" a brief peck on the lips.

 

8 hours ago, Economic said:

>>>I fear I may become impotent if I see too much of that guy. Talk about a soul-suck. The virtue of the pedantic mixed with the boring, peppered with random ticks of random emotions.

Please. . . tell us how you really feel. 

 

I just saw the video and I am flabbergasted.

Where the hell did James Valliant go? That man who interviewed Peikoff was a good interviewer. He was relaxed, not snarky, upbeat, did not get in the way of Peikoff talking. He showed his clear admiration of Peikoff, but he was not fawning and fake. I speak with a producer's eye, not just giving out an opinion

God help me, I enjoyed this interview. And one of the reasons is that James Valliant, the [insert a ton of negative adjectives] James Valliant, did a good job and was entertaining at that. 

Makes me want to believe in a fairy godmother.  

Seriously, though, it's a good interview. 

 

Looks like the TV series of Atlas Shrugged is underway. Peikoff said that, anyway. Also, the copyright to Rand's works will not go to any family member of his when he passes. He's doing some kind of committee or something of people he deems knowledgeable in Objectivism and knowledgeable in business.

 

About Peikoff's love life, I might as well say the unmentionable since I have not seen anybody say anything.

From what I could tell from Grace's brief entry into the scene, I think she's black. She looks black to me. Hispanic instead? Maybe. Here's a screenshot from 44:27 so you can see and come to your own conclusion.

I love it.

 

Seriously. She's young (young enough to call him a dirty old man  ), pretty, a nurse who cares for him, and from her demeanor, I did not sense falseness. I sensed genuine feelings for him. I know people are calling her a gold-digger and worse, but I didn't get those vibes. She also turned down the marriage proposal 2 or 3 times before accepting it going from what Peikoff said.

He's obviously happy and in love with her, so I am happy for him. Grace seems to bring out good vibes in Peikoff himself.

When it's his time to pass, he will leave this life with a smile on his face.

What's not to like?

Come on, people...

 

Man, with that video, I think I entered some kind of quantum physics portal to a different reality than the one I know, than the one I have lived.

 

Good on these people.

I hope all this goodness continues and grows. 

Michael

[anthony]

On 9/18/2024 at 12:59 AM, Economic said:

“I regard the spread of Objectivism through today’s culture as an intellectual movement – i.e. a trend among independent individuals who share the same ideas – but not as an organized movement. … Objectivism is not an organized movement and is not to be regarded as such by anyone. … I shall not establish or endorse any type of school or organization purporting to represent or be a spokesman for Objectivism.  I shall repudiate and take appropriate action against any attempt to use my name or my philosophy, explicitly or implicitly, in connection with any project of that kind or any organization not authorized by me.”

 

That didn't age well.

If adhered to, I think it could have been pivotal to the "movement", and very much what I'd have expected and appreciated from Rand: a totally different character of movement would have emerged/evolved, not one of a central intellectual authority and hierarchy, but 'decentralized' across the ~many~ unaffiliated, thinking individuals who found its worth. Privately published journals, hundreds of small debate groups etc.etc., and eventually being Internet propagated on many independent sites. In short, *informally* made known and spread, the stress on individuals, not institutions. Let alone, the ONE holding dominance. 

How and why LP went against Rand's wishes, being one person who should know of the above and one who'd honor them, I find strange.

Was it ever a controversial argument? In fact, how many here knew of what she wrote? (Which I found quite by accident). The issue hasn't raised much interest here.