Peikoff's response to Branden/Hessen/Holzer allegations -- ignored in h.p.o.
David Hayes
lawsuit on his radio program, yet no one here (so far as I've seen--and I've
looked) has acknowledged that Dr. Peikoff has publicly discussed the
subject, nor that he has responded to many of the objections seen in posts
on this newsgroup.
In the fourth (of five) segments of the first hour of his Sunday, October
11, program, he said that an auction had been announced for the sale of
5,000 pages of Ayn Rand materials by Barbara Branden and Robert Hessen. He
stated that he had in 1991 sued Barbara Branden and Doubleday, and in 1987
had sued Robert Hessen, for the return of possession of things, and these
matters were settled by the return of the items. Leonard's attorney, whom
he named as Marcia Paul -- spelling her name for his listeners -- wants a
response, but Branden and Hessen threaten a suit if Peikoff merely publishes
his letter on the internet. The internet is already full of the position of
the other side, he said, stating that this is why he was considered it
necessary to address the Objectivists in his audience through the program.
Two involved parties, he said, are already presenting their side on their
web sites. He finds himself attacked for trying to make his position open.
He acknowledged that anyone can comment upon and interpret Objectivism.
That's not at issue. Property rights are at issue. (This takes care of one
of Holzer's assertions, that Peikoff seeks "a monopoly on Rand's ideas.")
Ayn Rand was concerned about ownership of her papers. She left them to him
in her will. As her legal heir, Leonard has ownership denied to others.
After stating this, Dr. Peikoff added that these other parties in various
capacities were permitted to borrow the materials for various purposes. He
did not name these purposes, although we might easily infer that Hessen's
authorized reprintings of Ayn Rand's periodicals may have been what brought
them into contact with the manuscripts.
Dr. Peikoff didn't mention this next fact on his program this past Sunday
but I did hear him state this several years ago at an ARI function: it was
Ayn Rand's fiction manuscripts that she promised to the Library of Congress;
no provisions were made for the non-fiction. This fact should quiet the
objectors who claim only an incomplete assortment made it to the Library of
Congress and that this was opposite to Miss Rand's wishes. The manuscripts
to the novels which were in the possession of the Estate have been delivered
to the Library of Congress.
Another Holzer claim that is worth puncturing, although Peikoff did not
address this one either, is Holzer's statement that "Peikoff's concern about
dispersal rings hollow in view of his
apparently having conducted an auction at which he, himself, sold a Rand
manuscript." Peikoff in fact _donated_ to the Ayn Rand Institute the
material in question, and it was the Institute which auctioned it to achieve
(intellectual) ends towards which Ayn Rand herself worked. The manuscript
pages were almost surely photocopied so they would be available to scholars.
Have Branden and Hessen made any such provisions?
Leonard Peikoff, it has been said on this newsgroup, sought what has been
painted as an unwarranted legal remedy against Robert Hessen when the latter
sold his stock of reprints of Ayn Rand's periodicals to Laissez-Faire Books
in 1986. Leonard Peikoff stated his position on the matter in a letter to
the Objectivist mailing lists dated October 14, 1986. (This was five months
after the May 1, 1986 letter that the Hessens sent to mailing list of their
firm, Palo Alto Book Service, in which they announced the closing of the
company effect May 23.)
Dr. Peikoff wrote:
"I had had the same arrangement with Palo Alto Book Service that Ayn Rand
did before me. We offered Hessen the opportunity to sell various Ayn Rand
items (e.g., back issues of Ayn Rand's magazines) on an exclusive basis, and
we agreed to supply him with a mailing list and to recommend his book
service to the Objectivist market--on one condition: that he would not carry
or endorse books by opponents of Objectivism or by those hostile to Ayn
Rand. Neither Ayn Rand nor I thought it proper for a business founded on an
appeal to Ayn Rand's admirers to promote or profit from the literature of
her detractors.
"Laissez Faire Books [to whom Hessen sold] ... regularly carries and
favorably reviews books incompatible with Objectivism, and in many cases
antagonistic to Ayn Rand.... It has been a difficult blow for me to see
Robert Hessen sell to such an outfit all the assets--Objectivist inventory,
mailing list, good will--which Hessen was able to acquire only through Ayn
Rand's and my own cooperation and assistance. In my judgment, we had made
our terms abundantly clear, and Hessen simply ignored them."
It has been asserted in h.p.o. that Leonard was on legal quicksand in his
legal action because of the "first sale" doctrine. However, notice that
terms had been set for the initial sale which would be binding on subsequent
sales. This is not the typical "first sale" situation wherein the original
seller objects to the subsequent sale despite NOT having established the
rights and obligations.
Contrary to the assertion posted in h.p.o. that Leonard lost in his efforts,
the matter was settled out of court, and, to my knowledge, the parties have
not made public statements about the settlement.
--
David Hayes
Excise "excise" to respond by private email.
Lavos999
<snip>
>He acknowledged that anyone can comment upon and interpret Objectivism.
>That's not at issue. Property rights are at issue. (This takes care of one
>of Holzer's assertions, that Peikoff seeks "a monopoly on Rand's ideas.")
>
>Ayn Rand was concerned about ownership of her papers. She left them to him
>in her will. As her legal heir, Leonard has ownership denied to others.
Not if Ms. Rand gave away the papers before her death. A will can't, obviously,
retroactively change ownership of things already disposed of.
<BOT FOOD>
<BOT FOOD>
<BOT FOOD>
<BOT FOOD>
<BOT FOOD>
<BOT FOOD>
<BOT FOOD>
<BOT FOOD>
DEATH TOLL
----------
Soviet Union 100,000,000
Little Rock 72
Chappaquiddick 1
Three Mile Island 0
-----------------
Jail To The Chief
Ken Gardner
<davidp_ex...@earthlink.net> says...
> Nearly a week has passed since Leonard Peikoff addressed the Branden/Hessen
> lawsuit on his radio program, yet no one here (so far as I've seen--and I've
> looked) has acknowledged that Dr. Peikoff has publicly discussed the
> subject, nor that he has responded to many of the objections seen in posts
> on this newsgroup.
Thanks for posting your note. It was very helpful to me.
> He stated that he had in 1991 sued Barbara Branden and Doubleday, and in 1987
> had sued Robert Hessen, for the return of possession of things, and these
> matters were settled by the return of the items.
I didn't know this. Even so, does Peikoff have hard evidence -- in THIS
case -- that the ownership claims of Brandon and Hesson are invalid?
Then again, why did Brandon and Hesson settle the earlier cases? What
are the similarities and differences between the prior cases and this
case?
> Leonard's attorney, whom he named as Marcia Paul -- spelling her name for
> his listeners -- wants a response, but Branden and Hessen threaten a
> suit if Peikoff merely publishes his letter on the internet.
Really? On what grounds?
[Portion omitted]
> He acknowledged that anyone can comment upon and interpret Objectivism.
> That's not at issue. Property rights are at issue. (This takes care of one
> of Holzer's assertions, that Peikoff seeks "a monopoly on Rand's ideas.")
Right.
> Ayn Rand was concerned about ownership of her papers. She left them to him
> in her will. As her legal heir, Leonard has ownership denied to others.
> After stating this, Dr. Peikoff added that these other parties in various
> capacities were permitted to borrow the materials for various purposes. He
> did not name these purposes, although we might easily infer that Hessen's
> authorized reprintings of Ayn Rand's periodicals may have been what brought
> them into contact with the manuscripts.
Sounds plausible as a theory of what happened, I.e. Brandon and Hesson
merely borrowed Rand's (and her estate's) property, and now the estate
wants it back. Having said that, who is prepared to testify that Brandon
and Hesson merely borrowed the manuscripts? We can already glean from
the Holzer letter that his clients contend that Rand gave them the
papers.
> Dr. Peikoff didn't mention this next fact on his program this past Sunday
> but I did hear him state this several years ago at an ARI function: it was
> Ayn Rand's fiction manuscripts that she promised to the Library of Congress;
> no provisions were made for the non-fiction. This fact should quiet the
> objectors who claim only an incomplete assortment made it to the Library of
> Congress and that this was opposite to Miss Rand's wishes. The manuscripts
> to the novels which were in the possession of the Estate have been delivered
> to the Library of Congress.
Sounds plausible enough.
> Another Holzer claim that is worth puncturing, although Peikoff did not
> address this one either, is Holzer's statement that "Peikoff's concern about
> dispersal rings hollow in view of his apparently having conducted an auction
> at which he, himself, sold a Rand manuscript."
Actually, Holzer's claim here is so irrelevant to the legal issues
involved (and also illogical -- it is a classic example of a variation of
ad hominem called tu quoque, I think) that it is almost NOT worth
puncturing. It is, however, an excellent example of context-dropping
worthy of a Bill Clinton or his equivalent.
> Peikoff in fact _donated_ to the Ayn Rand Institute the material in quest
> ion,
> and it was the Institute which auctioned it to achieve (intellectual)
> ends towards which Ayn Rand herself worked. The manuscript pages were
> almost surely photocopied so they would be available to scholars.
> Have Branden and Hessen made any such provisions?
[Insert "Context is everything" here.]
Again, thanks for posting your note.
[Remainder omitted]
Ken
Steve Reed
morning, or got waylaid on the 'Net. --SR]
David Hayes wrote:
>Nearly a week has passed since Leonard Peikoff addressed the
>Branden/Hessen lawsuit on his radio program, yet no one here
>(so far as I've seen--and I've looked) has acknowledged that
>Dr. Peikoff has publicly discussed the subject, nor that he
>has responded to many of the objections seen in posts on this
>newsgroup.
Perhaps you may be able to grasp what a number of us, in HPO and elsewhere,
have been saying for years about the Official Objectivist oral culture: Sound
recordings, whether of lectures or live talk shows, are no replacement for
having a written record that can be reviewed and responded to in detail and
with specific citations.
If Peikoff were doing as he had been doing until recently, placing the show
from the previous Sunday on Broadcast.com (formerly AudioNet) so that it could
be heard for the following week, you might have a cause to complain about
nobody taking up his points. Since he now can only be heard in real time
without shelling out a fee, you have much less of one.
>[... Peikoff] stated that he had in 1991 sued Barbara Branden and
>Doubleday, and in 1987 had sued Robert Hessen, for the return of
>possession of things, and these matters were settled by the return
>of the items.
What Peikoff clearly omitted -- it's the usual shading by those who benefit
from such settlements -- is that the party who provides the monetary or other
amount to settle strenously notes in the court filings that no guilt or legal
responsibility is being admitted.
Part of Branden and Hessen's point in choosing to raise a defense fund this
time has been that they chose, in these past cases, to make a settlement
rather than have themselves be bankrupted with legal fees. That is no
admission that Peikoff had a valid case. It was a choice to avoid a greater
potential loss.
To quote from Holzer's original letter:
"Unlike in the past, neither Ms. Branden nor Dr. Hessen will submit to your
clients' spurious, bullying assertions as to what rights he purports to
possess. Each of my clients now recognizes that their cooperation with Peikoff
in the past has only emboldened him, and they are determined this time not to
cave in to his threats."
(The latter case noted above is that of the Palo Alto Book Service, in which
Peikoff clearly had no pursuable case for retrieval of the "things" involved.
See below. The former case was -- from what I have read -- for Branden's taped
copies of her 1960 interviews with Rand, and Branden said that -she- retains
those tapes for her lifetime under the settlement.)
>[...] Branden and Hessen threaten a suit if Peikoff merely
>publishes his [lawyer's] letter on the Internet. The Internet is
>already full of the position of the other side, he said, stating
>that this is why he considered it necessary to address the
>Objectivists in his audience through the program.
It appears that they consider the letter to contain defamatory statements,
such as (to infer from Holzer's statements about it) allegations about
possible outright theft and burglary of manuscripts. So they are saying that
if Peikoff chooses to publish it, they will pursue such action. That isn't
stopping him because he -publishes.- Leave it to him to make an impression
that Branden and Hessen want to suppress his free speech ... poor baby!
Branden and Hessen cannot reproduce the letters from Peikoff's lawyer without
running the risk (small as it may be in practice) of an action for copyright
infringement. It's understandable that they want to avoid such an additional
risk. But Peikoff and his mouthpiece have no such restrictions. They want to
do that, though, while mewling about how bad it is that reality is bringing
them consequences for it. It'd be nice if he got a backbone transplant.
>Two involved parties, he said, are already presenting their side
>on their web sites. He finds himself attacked for trying to make
>his position open.
He has a Website, too (pwni.com). Let him do what he wishes. "The press is
free, for he who owns one," said A.J. Liebling. Well, in the 'Net era, we all
can own one. Let him post it, and stop whining about it.
>He acknowledged that anyone can comment upon and interpret
>Objectivism. That's not at issue. Property rights are at issue.
>(This takes care of one of Holzer's assertions, that Peikoff
>seeks "a monopoly on Rand's ideas.")
Nicely quoted out of context. What Holzer said, in regard to what may be
brought to light as evidence (or rationalizing) in an actual lawsuit, was: "In
the bargain, we will also ascertain whether your clients have a monopoly on
Rand's ideas."
This is clearly, at least to me, an allusion to how Peikoff may profess his
nonexistent status as "intellectual heir" to bolster his claims to any such
material. Would this be legally relevant? Of course not. Since when did that
stop any attorney from throwing in such a contention?
To note the old saying: "When you can't argue the facts, argue the law. When
you can't argue the law, scream and pound on the table." Peikoff may well be
reduced to screaming about how he was the only friend Rand had left, and so
how could anyone else have received a gift from her? We'll see.
>Ayn Rand was concerned about ownership of her papers. She left
>them to him in her will. As her legal heir, Leonard has ownership
>denied to others.
Not of any property that she gave away while she was alive.
>After stating this, Dr. Peikoff added that these other parties in
>various capacities were permitted to borrow the materials for
>various purposes. He did not name these purposes, although we might
>easily infer that Hessen's authorized reprintings of Ayn Rand's
>periodicals may have been what brought them into contact with the
>manuscripts.
No, we may not. The reprintings were of the actual printed pages of those
periodicals, transferred photographically onto new plates. (They weren't in
any computer-readable format. I have worked in the industry for 15 years, and
I know what couldn't then be done.) Whoever reprinted them, or ordered it to
be done, had no reason to see any manuscripts. They were wholly unnecessary.
All that was needed was to ship a set of original newsletters off to any
competent printer.
Don't confuse the presence of reproductions of a few Rand fiction manuscript
pages, in the Second Renaissance editions of Rand's newsletters, with any
access by -Branden and Hessen- to such manuscripts. Those were added to the
volumes that Peter Schwartz had chosen to print, to create sales hype.
Use some common sense. How could any cache totalling 5,000 manuscript pages be
transferred to the hands of such close associates without it ever being
noticed? This is not a small pile of paper. Peikoff had to have wondered
before now where it had gone. Why didn't he bother to check it out before now
.. when it has some commercial value that he may seize?
>Dr. Peikoff didn't mention this next fact on his program this
>past Sunday but I did hear him state this several years ago at an
>ARI function: it was Ayn Rand's fiction manuscripts that she
>promised to the Library of Congress; no provisions were made for
>the non-fiction. This fact should quiet the objectors who claim
>only an incomplete assortment made it to the Library of Congress
>and that this was opposite to Miss Rand's wishes.
The reference in "The Objectivist Newsletter" ("A Report to Our Readers,
1964," by Nathaniel Branden) was to a letter from the Librarian of Congress
that was quoted as suggesting the possibility of donating "your papers and
manuscripts," period. That request was not at all restricted to her fiction
manuscripts. Branden wrote that "Miss Rand responded that she would be
delighted to accept the invitation."
Anyone who read this and assumed that -- apart from any change Rand made, in
making gifts to others -- her donation was to be limited to fiction materials
would not have been justified.
>The manuscripts to the novels which were in the possession of
>the Estate have been delivered to the Library of Congress.
Except, at a minimum, the first and last pages of "The Fountainhead," which
Peikoff admitted in the "Los Angeles Times" that he "stole" before sending the
manuscript to the Library. (Who knows what else he'd culled elsewhere.) As
Barbara Branden wrote in a message on the Objectivism-L list, "I can't imagine
what needs to be said beyond the word 'stole.'"
About a Rand MS that was donated to and sold by ARI:
>[...] The manuscript pages were almost surely photocopied so
>they would be available to scholars. Have Branden and Hessen
>made any such provisions?
Now, that -is- one question I would hope they would answer. A better solution,
in fact, to the need for keeping a record would be to make digital scans of
all such pages, preserving colors of ink used on layers of revisions, as well
as writing that may be more faint.
From Peikoff's 1986 letter about his arrangement
with the Hessens' Palo Alto Book Service:
>"[... My sole] condition [was] that he would not carry or endorse
>books by opponents of Objectivism or by those hostile to Ayn Rand.
>Neither Ayn Rand nor I thought it proper for a business founded
>on an appeal to Ayn Rand's admirers to promote or profit from the
>literature of her detractors.["]
It'd be nice if any defender of Peikoff's position could cite -one- title sold
by Palo Alto to which this would apply. They can't. I was a customer of the
Hessens' service over some years, including the later years, in which they
began to notably branch out from concentrating on Rand's published works.
>["]Laissez Faire Books [to whom Hessen sold] ... regularly
>carries and favorably reviews books incompatible with Objectivism,
>and in many cases antagonistic to Ayn Rand ... ["]
So what? Did he mean to imply that he had an agreement to restrict the parties
to whom Bob Hessen could sell the assets of his business? Notice, in the
original quotation, how Peikoff slides around this point. When I saw the
quoted letter in 1986, I thought then that this mere contractual detail (not!)
was something that he wouldn't hesitate to mention, if it had existed.
>["]It has been a difficult blow for me to see Robert Hessen sell
>to such an outfit all the assets--Objectivist inventory, mailing
>list, good will--which Hessen was able to acquire only through
>Ayn Rand's and my own cooperation and assistance.["]
"Only through"? You ran their business for them, Lenny? Took on the
entrepreneurial risk? Did the advertising? Their use of the names from the
card-in-the-Rand-books list was the largest spur for initial inquiries, but
the Hessens had to -keep- their customers. They did it through excellent
service and a growing selection, including dozens of non-Rand titles.
>["]In my judgment, we had made our terms abundantly clear,
>and Hessen simply ignored them."
Does "abundantly clear" mean -written contracts,- Lenny? Do you care?
>It has been asserted in h.p.o. that Leonard was on legal quicksand
>in his legal action because of the "first sale" doctrine. However,
>notice that terms had been set for the initial sale which would be
>binding on subsequent sales. This is not the typical "first sale"
>situation wherein the original seller objects to the subsequent sale
>despite NOT having established the rights and obligations.
I made that original point. Whether Peikoff made any such contract or not (and
he studiously avoids saying that he had actually done so), the fact remains
that he had no additional leg to stand on by asserting his ownership of Rand's
-copyrights- to these publications. The "first sale" rule in federal copyright
law applies to distributors who own their stock, rather than take it under
consignment, and the Hessens owned their stock.
>Contrary to the assertion posted in h.p.o. that Leonard lost in
>his efforts, the matter was settled out of court, and, to my
>knowledge, the parties have not made public statements about
>the settlement.
I was the one who brought up Palo Alto, some weeks ago, and I know I never
made any assertion that he "lost" -- I noted that, "for whatever reason," no
court case ensued.
Whether statements were made or not, the open facts remain: Laissez Faire
Books continued to own and freely use the Palo Alto mailing list. All of the
Rand-related items, newsletters, pamphlets, audio tapes, remained in its hands
and were freely sold, some to this present day. Since these weren't disgorged
from LFB, that indicates (though is not conclusive) that whatever monies
Hessen may have felt he had to pay to ward off Peikoff's threats, not enough
of a case existed for actually taking back those materials.
Peikoff is acting, and has been acting, like a bully. He won't concretize his
"responses" enough to put his statements on the reviewable record. This has
gone on for over a decade. And it's high time that someone stood up to him.
Stand up to "official Objectivist" idiocy!
* Objectivist-Libertarian Defense Fund
Opposing Peikoff * http://oldfop.org
"To stay young requires unceasing cultivation
of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods."
-- Robert Heinlein
Ken Gardner
<Stev...@earthling.net> says...
[Portion omitted]
> If Peikoff were doing as he had been doing until recently, placing the show
> from the previous Sunday on Broadcast.com (formerly AudioNet) so that it
> could
> be heard for the following week, you might have a cause to complain about
> nobody taking up his points. Since he now can only be heard in real time
> without shelling out a fee, you have much less of one.
If what Peikoff is saying is true -- which is all that really matters
here, or will matter in court -- then it makes no difference how he
chooses to say it. Having said that, I would like to see his letter, in
part to see what provoked such a hysterical, unprofessional response from
Holzer.
> What Peikoff clearly omitted -- it's the usual shading by those who benefit
> from such settlements -- is that the party who provides the monetary or o
> ther
> amount to settle strenously notes in the court filings that no guilt or l
> egal
> responsibility is being admitted.
Often you settle because you know that the other side's claims have some
merit or even because you know that you will probably lose at trial.
Settlement is often the act of attempting to cut your losses. A
stipulation that a settlement is without admission of liability is, in
many if not most cases, little more than a face-saving measure by a
defendant who knows that he is in serious legal trouble. To be sure, in
some cases the defendant merely wants to save on legal fees. My point,
however, is that you should not read too much into these stipulations.
Virtually all settlement agreements have them, even when the facts of the
case are otherwise.
As a general rule, when a party agrees to settle a case by essentially
giving his opponent what he is asking for (in this case, return of
property that allegedly was wrongfully taken or possessed by the
defendant), chances are that the other party had a very good claim.
> Part of Branden and Hessen's point in choosing to raise a defense fund this
> time has been that they chose, in these past cases, to make a settlement
> rather than have themselves be bankrupted with legal fees. That is no
> admission that Peikoff had a valid case. It was a choice to avoid a greater
> potential loss.
Is it? Or is it just their self-serving spin on what actually happened?
I really don't know one way or the other, and you probably don't, either,
unless you were much closer to the case than I think you were.
> To quote from Holzer's original letter:
> "Unlike in the past, neither Ms. Branden nor Dr. Hessen will submit to your
> clients' spurious, bullying assertions as to what rights he purports to
> possess. Each of my clients now recognizes that their cooperation with Pe
> ikoff
> in the past has only emboldened him, and they are determined this time no
> t to
> cave in to his threats."
Same comment, in essence. Or, maybe this time Holzer has a stronger case
(or so he thinks -- maybe you would trust his legal judgment, although I
wouldn't based on what I saw in his letter).
> (The latter case noted above is that of the Palo Alto Book Service, in which
> Peikoff clearly had no pursuable case for retrieval of the "things" invol
> ved.
How do you know, especially in light of the settlement of that case? It
is certainly not so clear to me -- one way or the other -- except that
settlement almost always indicates that the underlying claims had SOME
merit or value.
[Portion omitted]
> It appears that they consider the letter to contain defamatory statements,
> such as (to infer from Holzer's statements about it) allegations about
> possible outright theft and burglary of manuscripts. So they are saying that
> if Peikoff chooses to publish it, they will pursue such action. That isn't
> stopping him because he -publishes.- Leave it to him to make an impression
> that Branden and Hessen want to suppress his free speech ... poor baby!
Here, I tend to agree. I don't think that publishing the letter would
expose Peikoff to any serious defamation claim any more than Holzer's
letter exposes HIS clients to any such claim (much less a "copyright
infringement" claim). Peikoff should publish the letter.
> Branden and Hessen cannot reproduce the letters from Peikoff's lawyer wit
> hout
> running the risk (small as it may be in practice) of an action for copyright
> infringement.
Oh yes they can. This excuse is, in my opinion, even more bogus than any
alleged fear of a defamation claim. If Peikoff pursues such a
copyright infringement claim, the most likely result is that the judge
will sanction him and his lawyer for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
> It's understandable that they want to avoid such an additional
> risk.
Not to me. I don't worry about being struck by lightning, either, even
if it is raining.
> But Peikoff and his mouthpiece have no such restrictions. They want to
> do that, though, while mewling about how bad it is that reality is bringing
> them consequences for it. It'd be nice if he got a backbone transplant.
Well, he should publish his own letter as well. No argument from me on
that point.
> He has a Website, too (pwni.com). Let him do what he wishes. "The press is
> free, for he who owns one," said A.J. Liebling. Well, in the 'Net era, we
> all
> can own one. Let him post it, and stop whining about it.
Fair enough. I fully agree.
> Nicely quoted out of context. What Holzer said, in regard to what may be
> brought to light as evidence (or rationalizing) in an actual lawsuit, was
> : "In
> the bargain, we will also ascertain whether your clients have a monopoly on
> Rand's ideas."
If they start using the courtroom as a thinly disguised forum for arguing
over these ideas, any judge who gets this case will immediately send them
packing if he doesn't first fall asleep at the bench. The judge will be
interested only in resolving legal disputes, not philosophical disputes.
> This is clearly, at least to me, an allusion to how Peikoff may profess his
> nonexistent status as "intellectual heir" to bolster his claims to any such
> material. Would this be legally relevant? Of course not. Since when did that
> stop any attorney from throwing in such a contention?
Same comment.
> To note the old saying: "When you can't argue the facts, argue the law. When
> you can't argue the law, scream and pound on the table." Peikoff may well be
> reduced to screaming about how he was the only friend Rand had left, and so
> how could anyone else have received a gift from her? We'll see.
If THAT'S his argument, he better not file any lawsuit. Of course, I
don't know what his actual argument is because, for one thing, I haven't
seen his letter. Nor has anyone indicated who will testify under oath
regarding the facts underlying the ownership dispute.
> >Ayn Rand was concerned about ownership of her papers. She left
> >them to him in her will. As her legal heir, Leonard has ownership
> >denied to others.
> Not of any property that she gave away while she was alive.
IF she gave the property away. That's the dispute as I understand it
from what little I know. I am interested only in "just the facts" here,
not the spin from Peikoff's supporters or detractors on this newsgroup.
[Portion omitted]
> Use some common sense. How could any cache totalling 5,000 manuscript pag
> es be
> transferred to the hands of such close associates without it ever being
> noticed? This is not a small pile of paper. Peikoff had to have wondered
> before now where it had gone. Why didn't he bother to check it out before
> now
> .. when it has some commercial value that he may seize?
One possible explanation is that such pages COULD be transferred without
anyone noticing, and that no one noticed until recently. I don't know
one way or the other because I don't know enough underlying facts to form
a conclusion.
[Portion omitted]
> Anyone who read this and assumed that -- apart from any change Rand made, in
> making gifts to others -- her donation was to be limited to fiction mater
> ials
> would not have been justified.
Again, I'm not so sure. Again, I am willing to wait until ALL of the
important known facts are in before forming a conclusion one way or the
other. If there is litigation, the truth will eventually come out.
> Except, at a minimum, the first and last pages of "The Fountainhead," which
> Peikoff admitted in the "Los Angeles Times" that he "stole" before sendin
> g the
> manuscript to the Library. (Who knows what else he'd culled elsewhere.) As
> Barbara Branden wrote in a message on the Objectivism-L list, "I can't im
> agine
> what needs to be said beyond the word 'stole.'"
Tu quoque, which is no more a defense in court than a logically valid
answer to an argument. If I get pulled over for a traffic ticket, I
cannot argue that other drivers were speeding as well and were not pulled
over -- even if this argument is true.
[Portion omitted]
> From Peikoff's 1986 letter about his arrangement
> with the Hessens' Palo Alto Book Service:
> >"[... My sole] condition [was] that he would not carry or endorse
> >books by opponents of Objectivism or by those hostile to Ayn Rand.
> >Neither Ayn Rand nor I thought it proper for a business founded
> >on an appeal to Ayn Rand's admirers to promote or profit from the
> >literature of her detractors.["]
Here, here.
> It'd be nice if any defender of Peikoff's position could cite -one- title
> sold
> by Palo Alto to which this would apply. They can't. I was a customer of the
> Hessens' service over some years, including the later years, in which they
> began to notably branch out from concentrating on Rand's published works.
Second Renaissance also sells materials that, arguably, fall in this
category. I remember reading a book called The History of Knowledge (I
think) advertised by Second Renaissance (although I bought it in a
bookstore) in which the author, Charles Van Doren, made the argument that
the goals of communism (or Marxism -- it has been a while since I had
read the book) were noble, but the means were not. I cannot imagine that
Rand would have tolerated such a book even if it was otherwise correct or
not inconsistent with Objectivism.
> So what? Did he mean to imply that he had an agreement to restrict the pa
> rties
> to whom Bob Hessen could sell the assets of his business? Notice, in the
> original quotation, how Peikoff slides around this point. When I saw the
> quoted letter in 1986, I thought then that this mere contractual detail (
> not!)
> was something that he wouldn't hesitate to mention, if it had existed.
I don't know, but my preliminary impression from what I have seen here
was that there WAS such a contractual agreement. I would like to know
whether such a formal written contract existed. [Insert "Just the facts"
here and throughout this entire thread]
[Remainder omitted]
Ken
Chris Wolf
>Nearly a week has passed since Leonard Peikoff addressed the Branden/Hessen
>lawsuit on his radio program, yet no one here (so far as I've seen--and I've
>looked) has acknowledged that Dr. Peikoff has publicly discussed the
>subject, nor that he has responded to many of the objections seen in posts
>on this newsgroup.
That's because we can no longer go to the PWNI web site, and listen to
archives of the show, without paying. And there's no way I'm going to pay
seven bucks to listen to Peikoff tell his side of the story.
Barbara Branden and Robert Hessen have made their side of the story freely
available on their web site. If Peikoff can't be bothered to do the same,
then he'll just have to suffer the consequences.
>In the fourth (of five) segments of the first hour of his Sunday, October
>11, program, he said that an auction had been announced for the sale of
>5,000 pages of Ayn Rand materials by Barbara Branden and Robert Hessen. He
>stated that he had in 1991 sued Barbara Branden and Doubleday, and in 1987
>had sued Robert Hessen, for the return of possession of things, and these
>matters were settled by the return of the items.
A typical Peikoff response. Tell the truth, but not ALL of the truth, so
as to give a false impression to your listeners. The truth is, Peikoff
threatened to sue Barbara Branden, and Barbara couldn't afford to fight the
suit, so she gave Peikoff what he wanted, just to make the suit go away.
Of course, the problem with paying an extortionist is that he always comes
back for more. Now Peikoff is trying his extortion tactic again, and this
time Barbara has decided to fight.
>Leonard's attorney, whom
>he named as Marcia Paul -- spelling her name for his listeners -- wants a
>response, but Branden and Hessen threaten a suit if Peikoff merely publishes
>his letter on the internet.
Sounds like more of Peikoff's bullshit. Branden and Hessen have already
published their reply to Peikoff, on the Internet, and have indicated that
they would like to publish Peikoff's original letter, as well, but that
Peikoff's letter was copyrighted, and so they are unable to do so.
I'll believe Peikoff's claim that Branden and Hessen are threatening to sue
Peikoff, if he publishes his original letter on the Internet, when Peikoff
produces some sort of proof that this threat was really made against him by
Branden and Hessen.
>The internet is already full of the position of
>the other side, he said, stating that this is why he was considered it
>necessary to address the Objectivists in his audience through the program.
How nice. He provides an answer for the Faithful who listen to his show,
but makes nothing available for the rest of the world. Typical Peikoff.
He's not interested in proving the truth to the world; only reassuring his
sycophants and toadies.
>Two involved parties, he said, are already presenting their side on their
>web sites. He finds himself attacked for trying to make his position open.
Typical Peikoff bullshit. The man lives in a fantasy world.
>He acknowledged that anyone can comment upon and interpret Objectivism.
>That's not at issue. Property rights are at issue. (This takes care of one
>of Holzer's assertions, that Peikoff seeks "a monopoly on Rand's ideas.")
Bullshit. Are you really that fucking stupid?
Certainly anyone is free to comment upon, and interpret Objectivism. Just
as anyone is free to get out of the lifeboat, and start swimming.
Until David Kelley established the competing IOS institute, there was
nowhere else for an Objectivist to go. The Ayn Rand Institute was all
there was, and anyone who didn't toe Peikoff's line, was kicked out.
Peikoff's actions, over the years, clearly demonstrate that he is indeed
seeking a monopoly on Rand's ideas. Peikoff's claim that "anyone can
comment upon and interpret Objectivism," as proof that he is not seeking a
monopoly on Rand's ideas, is as disingenuous as one can get. It's a
complete dropping of context, and it's typical Peikoff.
But apparently there are people dumb enough to buy this nonsense.
>Another Holzer claim that is worth puncturing, although Peikoff did not
>address this one either, is Holzer's statement that "Peikoff's concern about
>dispersal rings hollow in view of his
>apparently having conducted an auction at which he, himself, sold a Rand
>manuscript." Peikoff in fact _donated_ to the Ayn Rand Institute the
>material in question, and it was the Institute which auctioned it to achieve
>(intellectual) ends towards which Ayn Rand herself worked.
In other words, Peikoff never pulled the trigger. He hired somebody else
to do it. That certainly gets him off the hook. I must remember this the
next time I want somebody killed. I'll take a page from Peikoff's book,
and hire the job out. Then I wont' be guilty.
>Contrary to the assertion posted in h.p.o. that Leonard lost in his efforts,
>the matter was settled out of court, and, to my knowledge, the parties have
>not made public statements about the settlement.
The mattered was settled out of court, because Peikoff had the money to
file harassing lawsuits, and the other side didn't. It was easier to give
him what he wanted, rather than fight him in court. It happens all the
time in our fucked-up legal system.
Leonard Peikoff is a man of zero character and zero credibility. For
proof, you need only visit my web site at http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
Leonard Peikoff Sues Barbara Branden
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/peikoff/barb.html
Steve Reed
>Steve Reed wrote:
>>If Peikoff were doing as he had been doing until recently, placing the show
>>from the previous Sunday on Broadcast.com (formerly AudioNet) so that it
>>could be heard for the following week, you might have a cause to complain
>>about nobody taking up his points. Since he now can only be heard in real
>>time without shelling out a fee, you have much less of one.
>If what Peikoff is saying is true -- which is all that really matters
>here, or will matter in court -- then it makes no difference how he
>chooses to say it.
True enough, although this doesn't address the petulance of the person who
started the thread, and complained that nobody addressed Peikoff's points from
last Sunday. (Like Wolf and others, I'm not spending $7.95 to hear them now.)
It isn't irrelevant to one of Peikoff's -own- bits of spin, that he supposedly
can't get his own side of the dispute publicized on the 'Net. He has nobody to
blame for that but himself. If he wants publicity, he has many 'Net venues for
it. He could place that bit of commentary among his set of free audio excerpts
from his show, available at pwni.com. But he isn't doing so.
>Having said that, I would like to see his letter, in part to see what
>provoked such a hysterical, unprofessional response from Holzer.
His lawyer is writing letters. Peikoff isn't. The second letter from Peikoff's
attorney apparently (as I deduce from Holzer's wording) asked Branden and
Hessen to release Peikoff and mouthpiece from any liability for potential
defamation, so that Peikoff could send the letter to others -- and Web-post
it, I assume -- without fear of legal reprisals for what he said. Holzer, et
al. apparently refused to give him a pass. And why should they?
You can write to Peikoff's attorney, Ken, to request a copy of either letter.
The snail and e-mail addresses are at oldfop.org.
>>What Peikoff clearly omitted -- it's the usual shading by those who benefit
>>from such settlements -- is that the party who provides the monetary or
>>other amount to settle strenously notes in the court filings that no guilt
>>or legal responsibility is being admitted.
>Often you settle because you know that the other side's claims have
>some merit or even because you know that you will probably lose at trial.
"Often" is not always. I wouldn't even say that it's "most of the time," in
this age of defensive lawsuits, where delays, motions, and discovery are often
pursued simply to engender more delays, rather than for substantive reasons.
Have you gathered nothing from what Clinton has done to try to block Starr?
>Settlement is often the act of attempting to cut your losses. A
>stipulation that a settlement is without admission of liability is, in
>many if not most cases, little more than a face-saving measure by a
>defendant who knows that he is in serious legal trouble.
No, it isn't. It's meant to be taken literally: Nothing is admitted that could
be seized upon to benefit other (often parallel) actions, and this is not
being left to implications. It's instrumental, not merely "face-saving."
>[...] My point, however, is that you should not read too much into
>these stipulations. Virtually all settlement agreements have them,
>even when the facts of the case are otherwise.
The "facts of the case" are not being adjudicated, period -- that's the point.
In the eyes of the court, you don't have the facts falling either way. You
merely have a withdrawal from the battlefield.
>As a general rule, when a party agrees to settle a case by essentially
>giving his opponent what he is asking for (in this case, return of
>property that allegedly was wrongfully taken or possessed by the
>defendant), chances are that the other party had a very good claim.
That may be ... but what does this have to do with either piece of litigation
that Peikoff had indulged in?
In 1987, he didn't stop what Hessen did with his Rand newsletter stock or
other business assets. They stayed with Laissez Faire Books. If anything, he
paid Peikoff to buzz off.
In 1991, he didn't take the original Rand interview tapes out of Branden's
hands (for her lifetime, allowing for her own use, at any rate). She made a
minimal concession in order for him to buzz off.
>>Part of Branden and Hessen's point in choosing to raise a defense fund this
>>time has been that they chose, in these past cases, to make a settlement
>>rather than have themselves be bankrupted with legal fees. That is no
>>admission that Peikoff had a valid case. It was a choice to avoid a greater
>>potential loss.
>Is it? Or is it just their self-serving spin on what actually happened?
>I really don't know one way or the other, and you probably don't, either,
>unless you were much closer to the case than I think you were.
Some of this is on open record. You can obtain Branden's detailed discussion
of her situation (about the tapes) as part of a lengthy interview provided to
"Liberty" magazine subscribers. Inquire about it at LibertySoft.com.
Some of this is my own research. I'm not about to say where I obtained some
details ... but neither are you obliged to believe me simply on my saying so.
Nonetheless, more of it hangs together with common sense than you seem to care
to admit.
>>(The latter case noted above is that of the Palo Alto Book Service,
>>in which Peikoff clearly had no pursuable case for retrieval of the
>>"things" involved. [...])
>How do you know, especially in light of the settlement of that case? [...]
Because if his case was any stronger, and if a contract existed that
limited Hessen's resale rights for his Rand material, Peikoff could have
pursued an injunction to seize it from Laissez Faire Books. He didn't choose
to do so. He went solely after Hessen.
>>Branden and Hessen cannot reproduce the letters from Peikoff's lawyer
>>without running the risk (small as it may be in practice) of an action for
>>copyright infringement.
>Oh yes they can. This excuse is, in my opinion, even more bogus than
>any alleged fear of a defamation claim. If Peikoff pursues such a
>copyright infringement claim, the most likely result is that the judge
>will sanction him and his lawyer for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
You don't know how seriously this is taken, do you? Especially when protected
attorney-client matters are at risk? Nor is copyright taken as the relatively
inconsequential issue that you've been suggesting it is this week.
If Peikoff wanted to hamstring them, he could file such an action -- and it
could be a long, expensive discovery road before it's thrown out as being
"frivolous," or on summary judgment. Why should they encourage that?
>>What Holzer said, in regard to what may be brought to light as evidence
>>(or rationalizing) in an actual lawsuit, was: "In the bargain, we will also
>>ascertain whether your clients have a monopoly on Rand's ideas."
>If they start using the courtroom as a thinly disguised forum for arguing
>over these ideas, any judge who gets this case will immediately send them
>packing if he doesn't first fall asleep at the bench. [...]
Who's saying that Holzer will want to argue about that? All that I'm seeing
him saying is that he'll poke holes in such an attempt if -Peikoff- makes it.
>>>Ayn Rand was concerned about ownership of her papers. She left
>>>them to him in her will. As her legal heir, Leonard has ownership
>>>denied to others.
>>Not of any property that she gave away while she was alive.
>IF she gave the property away. That's the dispute as I understand it
>from what little I know. I am interested only in "just the facts" here,
>not the spin from Peikoff's supporters or detractors on this newsgroup.
I posted some facts a couple weeks back that add credence to their claims,
including Beatrice Hessen's record (following her husband) of having worked
for Rand as her secretary and on her newsletters. It's germane, though of
course not conclusive. Did you bother to read it?
[The Rand fiction MSs were transferred to the Library of Congress --]
>>Except, at a minimum, the first and last pages of "The Fountainhead,"
>>which Peikoff admitted in the "Los Angeles Times" that he "stole" before
>>sending the manuscript to the Library. (Who knows what else he'd
>>culled elsewhere.) As Barbara Branden wrote in a message on the
>>Objectivism-L list, "I can't imagine what needs to be said beyond the
>>word 'stole.'"
>Tu quoque, which is no more a defense in court than a logically valid
>answer to an argument. [...]
Not tu quoque, because this is a different context. The starter of the thread
was discussing the moral, not legal, issue of whether Peikoff was following
Rand's expressed preference (documented in print) of sending -all- of her
residual manuscripts to the Library.
[About books being sold that "opposed Objectivism":]
>Second Renaissance also sells materials that, arguably, fall in this
>category. I remember reading a book called The History of Knowledge (I
>think) advertised by Second Renaissance (although I bought it in a
>bookstore) in which the author, Charles Van Doren, made the argument that
>the goals of communism (or Marxism -- it has been a while since I had
>read the book) were noble, but the means were not. I cannot imagine that
>Rand would have tolerated such a book even if it was otherwise correct or
>not inconsistent with Objectivism.
What is operative here is that Peter Schwartz's book service is being given a
pass from being consistent, even on Peikoff's own premises. As is his crony
Schwartz himself. Quelle surprise.
Why else would Schwartz be allowed to pull a Gus Webb alteration on Rand's
book "The New Left," not merely adding his own essays and introduction, but
changing its -title- when re-published this Winter? ("Return to Primitivism:
The Anti-Industrial Revolution")
Steve Reed
>Nearly a week has passed since Leonard Peikoff addressed the Branden/Hessen
>lawsuit on his radio program, yet no one here (so far as I've seen--and I've
>looked) has acknowledged that Dr. Peikoff has publicly discussed the
>subject, nor that he has responded to many of the objections seen in posts
>on this newsgroup.
Perhaps you may be able to grasp what a number of us, in HPO and elsewhere,
have been saying for years about the Official Objectivist oral culture: Sound
recordings, whether of lectures or live talk shows, are no replacement for
having a written record that can be reviewed and responded to in detail and
with specific citations.
If Peikoff were doing as he had been doing until recently, placing the show
from the previous Sunday show on Broadcast.com (formerly AudioNet) so that it
could be heard for the following week, you might have a cause to complain
about nobody taking up his points. Since he now can only be heard in real time
without shelling out a fee, you have much less of one.
>[... Peikoff] stated that he had in 1991 sued Barbara Branden and Doubleday,
>and in 1987 had sued Robert Hessen, for the return of possession of things,
>and these matters were settled by the return of the items.
What Peikoff clearly omitted -- it's the usual shading by those who benefit
from such settlements -- is that the party who provides the monetary or other
amount to settle strenously notes in the court filings that no guilt or legal
responsibility is being admitted.
Part of Branden and Hessen's point in choosing to raise a defense fund this
time has been that they chose, in these past cases, to make a settlement
rather than have themselves be bankrupted with legal fees. That is no
admission that Peikoff had a valid case. It was a choice to avoid a greater
potential loss.
To quote from Holzer's original letter:
"Unlike in the past, neither Ms. Branden nor Dr. Hessen will submit to your
clients' spurious, bullying assertions as to what rights he purports to
possess. Each of my clients now recognizes that their cooperation with Peikoff
in the past has only emboldened him, and they are determined this time not to
cave in to his threats."
(The latter case noted above is that of the Palo Alto Book Service, in which
Peikoff clearly had no pursuable case for retrieval of the "things" involved.
See below. The former case was -- from what I have read -- for Branden's taped
copies of her 1960 interviews with Rand, and Branden said that -she- retains
those tapes for her lifetime under the settlement.)
>[...] Branden and Hessen threaten a suit if Peikoff merely publishes
>his [lawyer's] letter on the Internet. The Internet is already full of the
>position of the other side, he said, stating that this is why he was
>considered it necessary to address the Objectivists in his audience
>through the program.
It appears that they consider the letter to contain defamatory statements,
such as (to infer from Holzer's statements about it) allegations about
possible outright theft and burglary of manuscripts. So they are saying that
if Peikoff chooses to publish it, they will pursue such action. That isn't
stopping him because he -publishes.- Leave it to him to make an impression
that Branden and Hessen want to suppress his free speech ... poor baby!
Branden and Hessen cannot reproduce the letters from Peikoff's lawyer without
running the risk (small as it may be in practice) of an action for copyright
infringement. It's understandable that they want to avoid such an additional
risk. But Peikoff and his mouthpiece have no such restrictions. They want to
do that, though, while mewling about how bad it is that reality is bringing
them consequences for it. It'd be nice if he got a backbone transplant.
>Two involved parties, he said, are already presenting their side on their
>web sites. He finds himself attacked for trying to make his position open.
He has a Website, too (pwni.com). Let him do what he wishes. "The press is
free, for he who owns one," said A.J. Liebling. Well, in the 'Net era, we all
can own one. Let him post it, and stop whining about it.
>He acknowledged that anyone can comment upon and interpret Objectivism.
>That's not at issue. Property rights are at issue. (This takes care of one
>of Holzer's assertions, that Peikoff seeks "a monopoly on Rand's ideas.")
Nicely quoted out of context. What Holzer said, in regard to what may be
brought to light as evidence (or rationalizing) in an actual lawsuit, was: "In
the bargain, we will also ascertain whether your clients have a monopoly on
Rand's ideas."
This is clearly, at least to me, an allusion to how Peikoff may profess his
nonexistent status as "intellectual heir" to bolster his claims to any such
material. Would this be legally relevant? Of course not. Since when did that
stop any attorney from throwing in such a contention?
To note the old saying: "When you can't argue the facts, argue the law. When
you can't argue the law, scream and pound on the table." Peikoff may well be
reduced to screaming about how he was the only friend Rand had left, and so
how could anyone else have received a gift from her? We'll see.
>Ayn Rand was concerned about ownership of her papers. She left them to
>him in her will. As her legal heir, Leonard has ownership denied to others.
Not of any property that she gave away while she was alive.
>After stating this, Dr. Peikoff added that these other parties in various
>capacities were permitted to borrow the materials for various purposes. He
>did not name these purposes, although we might easily infer that Hessen's
>authorized reprintings of Ayn Rand's periodicals may have been what brought
>them into contact with the manuscripts.
No, we may not. The reprintings were of the actual printed pages of those
periodicals, transferred photographically onto new plates. (They weren't in
any computer-readable format. I have worked in the industry for 15 years, and
I know what couldn't then be done.) Whoever reprinted them, or ordered it to
be done, had no reason to see any manuscripts. They were wholly unnecessary.
All that was needed was to ship a set of original newsletters off to any
competent printer.
Don't confuse the presence of reproductions of a few Rand fiction manuscript
pages, in the Second Renaissance editions of Rand's newsletters, with any
access by -Branden and Hessen- to such manuscripts. Those were added to the
volumes that Peter Schwartz had chosen to print, to create sales hype.
Use some common sense. How could any cache totalling 5,000 manuscript pages be
transferred to the hands of such close associates without it ever being
noticed? This is not a small pile of paper. Peikoff had to have wondered
before now where it had gone. Why didn't he bother to check it out before now
.. when it has some commercial value that he may seize?
>Dr. Peikoff didn't mention this next fact on his program this past Sunday
>but I did hear him state this several years ago at an ARI function: it was
>Ayn Rand's fiction manuscripts that she promised to the Library of Congress;
>no provisions were made for the non-fiction. This fact should quiet the
>objectors who claim only an incomplete assortment made it to the Library of
>Congress and that this was opposite to Miss Rand's wishes.
The reference in "The Objectivist Newsletter" ("A Report to Our Readers,
1964," by Nathaniel Branden) was to a letter from the Librarian of Congress
that was quoted as suggesting the possibility of donating "your papers and
manuscripts," period. That request was not at all restricted to her fiction
manuscripts. Branden wrote that "Miss Rand responded that she would be
delighted to accept the invitation."
Anyone who read this and assumed that -- apart from any change Rand made, in
making gifts to others -- her donation was to be limited to fiction materials
would not have been justified.
>The manuscripts to the novels which were in the possession of the Estate
>have been delivered to the Library of Congress.
Except, at a minimum, the first and last pages of "The Fountainhead," which
Peikoff admitted in the "Los Angeles Times" that he "stole" before sending the
manuscript to the Library. (Who knows what else he'd culled elsewhere.) As
Barbara Branden wrote in a message on the Objectivism-L list, "I can't imagine
what needs to be said beyond the word 'stole.'"
About a Rand MS that was donated to and sold by ARI:
>[...] The manuscript pages were almost surely photocopied so they would
>be available to scholars. Have Branden and Hessen made any such
>provisions?
Now, that -is- one question I would hope they would answer. A better solution,
in fact, to the need for keeping a record would be to make digital scans of
all such pages, preserving colors of ink used on layers of revisions, as well
as writing that may be more faint.
From Peikoff's 1986 letter about his arrangement
with the Hessens' Palo Alto Book Service:
>"[... My sole] condition [was] that he would not carry or endorse books by
>opponents of Objectivism or by those hostile to Ayn Rand. Neither Ayn
>Rand nor I thought it proper for a business founded on an appeal to
>Ayn Rand's admirers to promote or profit from the literature of her
>detractors.["]
It'd be nice if any defender of Peikoff's position could cite -one- title sold
by Palo Alto to which this would apply. They can't. I was a customer of the
Hessens' service over some years, including the later years, in which they
began to notably branch out from concentrating on Rand's published works.
>["]Laissez Faire Books [to whom Hessen sold] ... regularly carries and
>favorably reviews books incompatible with Objectivism, and in many cases
>antagonistic to Ayn Rand ... ["]
So what? Did he mean to imply that he had an agreement to restrict the parties
to whom Bob Hessen could sell the assets of his business? Notice, in the
original quotation, how Peikoff slides around this point. When I saw the
quoted letter in 1986, I thought then that this mere contractual detail (not!)
was something that he wouldn't hesitate to mention, if it had existed.
>["]It has been a difficult blow for me to see Robert Hessen sell to such an
>outfit all the assets--Objectivist inventory, mailing list, good will--which
>Hessen was able to acquire only through Ayn Rand's and my own
>cooperation and assistance.["]
"Only through"? You ran their business for them, Lenny? Took on the
entrepreneurial risk? Did the advertising? Their use of the names from
thecard-in-the-Rand-books list was the largest spur for initial inquiries, but
the Hessens had to -keep- their customers. They did it through excellent
service and a growing selection, including dozens of non-Rand titles.
>["]In my judgment, we had made our terms abundantly clear, and Hessen
>simply ignored them."
Does "abundantly clear" mean -written contracts,- Lenny? Do you care?
>It has been asserted in h.p.o. that Leonard was on legal quicksand in his
>legal action because of the "first sale" doctrine. However, notice that
>terms had been set for the initial sale which would be binding on subsequent
>sales. This is not the typical "first sale" situation wherein the original
>seller objects to the subsequent sale despite NOT having established the
>rights and obligations.
I made that original point. Whether Peikoff made any such contract or not (and
he studiously avoids saying that he had actually done so), the fact remains
that he had no additional leg to stand on by asserting his ownership of Rand's
-copyrights- to these publications. The "first sale" rule in federal copyright
law applies to distributors who own their stock, rather than take it under
consignment, and the Hessens owned their stock.
>Contrary to the assertion posted in h.p.o. that Leonard lost in his efforts,
>the matter was settled out of court, and, to my knowledge, the parties have
>not made public statements about the settlement.
I was the one who brought up Palo Alto, some weeks ago, and I know I never
made any assertion that he "lost" -- I noted that, "for whatever reason," no
court case ensued.
Whether statements were made or not, the open facts remain: Laissez Faire
Books continued to own and freely use the Palo Alto mailing list. All of the
Rand-related items, newsletters, pamphlets, audio tapes, remained in its hands
and were freely sold, some to this present day. Since these weren't disgorged
from LFB, that indicates (though is not conclusive) that whatever monies
Hessen may have felt he had to pay to ward off Peikoff's threats, not enough
of a case existed for actually taking back those materials.
Peikoff is acting, and has been acting, like a bully. He won't concretize his
"responses" enough to put his statements on the reviewable record. This has
gone on for over a decade. And it's high time that someone stood up to him.
David Hayes
>> Another Holzer claim that is worth puncturing, although Peikoff did not
>> address this one either, is Holzer's statement that "Peikoff's concern
about
>> dispersal rings hollow in view of his apparently having conducted an
auction
>> at which he, himself, sold a Rand manuscript."
>
>involved (and also illogical -- it is a classic example of a variation of
>ad hominem called tu quoque, I think) that it is almost NOT worth
>puncturing. It is, however, an excellent example of context-dropping
>worthy of a Bill Clinton or his equivalent.
Holzer's argument isn't merely an example of et tu ("you too"). My point
was that his clients were more guilty than he whom Holzer accused. Branden
and Hessen are not seeking to further Ayn Rand's wishes by putting the
manuscripts into private hands and money into the bank accounts of the
sellers. Peikoff, through his donation, sought to further the work of the
Ayn Rand Institute, an organization with objectives along the lines of one
that was announced in an Ayn Rand periodical: the Foundation for the New
Intellectual. (The Foundation for the New Intellectual was announced as a
non-profit organization in "The Objectivist" of March 1968. Its trustees
were Leonard Peikoff and the then-husband of Barbara Branden, Nathaniel.
Henry Mark Holzer cannot claim to be unfamiliar with the organization:
Holzer's name appears on the announcement as its attorney.)
Kyle Bennett (Whojgalt) wrote (in "Barbara Branden Throws Down The Glove!"):
>There's also public opinion to
>consider, both within the objectivist community,
>and outside should this get any mainstream attention.
>I don't know what Branden and Hassen do for a living
>these days, but I'd guess it is something in which
>reputation plays a role. I still maintain that it was
>reckless to give Peikoff's lawyers this kind of
>potential ammunition
It is suggested above that Barbara Branden and Robert Hessen would not be
filing a frivolous lawsuit inasmuch as they would be concerned that they
maintain good names for themselves lest they ruin the chance for future
employment. However, age already is a barrier to employment. Barbara
Branden was a college student when she met Ayn Rand in 1950, so we should
figure that she is now forty-eight years older than the age of the youngest
college student. Her younger cousin Leonard Peikoff was 17 when he met Ayn
Rand in 1951 and is now either age 65 or within a few months of that age.
(He said he was within months of age 65 on his radio program some time
back.)
I don't know Hessen's exact age, but he is or has been employed as a college
professor. He, too, was introduced to Ayn Rand during the 1950s (and was
employed by her late in that decade), so he is either at or near what is
thought to be "retirement age."
Bennett also wrote:
>Not that the threats shouldn't be made, I just think
>there's better ways to make them. Primarily by
>having anybody BUT your lawyer make them.
Barbara Branden is no stranger to having her lawyer make strong, damning
statements in court papers and between-lawyer correspondence. When she and
her ex-husband Nathaniel were embroiled in disputes in 1981 over his payment
to her of alimony, her side painted his as engaged in conspiracy to deprive
her, and his side was shown to have already violated his legal agreements.
--
David Hayes
Excise "excise" if responding by private email.
David Hayes
>> address this one either, is Holzer's statement that "Peikoff's concern
about
>> dispersal rings hollow in view of his apparently having conducted an
auction
>> at which he, himself, sold a Rand manuscript."
>
>involved (and also illogical -- it is a classic example of a variation of
>ad hominem called tu quoque, I think) that it is almost NOT worth
>puncturing. It is, however, an excellent example of context-dropping
>worthy of a Bill Clinton or his equivalent.
Holzer's argument isn't merely an example of tu quoquo ("you too"). My
--
David Hayes
Excise "excise" if responding by private email.
Ken Gardner
<Stev...@earthling.net> says...
> True enough, although this doesn't address the petulance of the person who
> started the thread, and complained that nobody addressed Peikoff's points
> from
> last Sunday. (Like Wolf and others, I'm not spending $7.95 to hear them now.)
I wouldn't spend the money, either.
> It isn't irrelevant to one of Peikoff's -own- bits of spin, that he suppo
> sedly
> can't get his own side of the dispute publicized on the 'Net. He has nobo
> dy to
> blame for that but himself. If he wants publicity, he has many 'Net venue
> s for
> it. He could place that bit of commentary among his set of free audio exc
> erpts
> from his show, available at pwni.com. But he isn't doing so.
I agree. He should publish the letter. Period.
> >Having said that, I would like to see his letter, in part to see what
> >provoked such a hysterical, unprofessional response from Holzer.
> His lawyer is writing letters. Peikoff isn't.
A birdie tells me that Peikoff reviewed and approved the letter before
his lawyer sent it. He is responsible for its contents, just as Brandon
and Hesson are responsible for the contents of their lawyer's letter.
> The second letter from Peikoff's attorney apparently (as I deduce from
> Holzer's wording) asked Branden and Hessen to release Peikoff and
> mouthpiece from any liability for potential defamation, so that
> Peikoff could send the letter to others -- and Web-post
> it, I assume -- without fear of legal reprisals for what he said. Holzer, et
> al. apparently refused to give him a pass. And why should they?
I haven't heard this detail, but if it is true, then there is certainly
no reason for Holzer or his clients to agree to any such release. To be
sure, Peikoff and his lawyer have no business asking for it. The very
request is a sign of weakness, at a time when they should be projecting
confidence in their own legal position.
They should just publish the letter. Period. If the letter contains
true statements, or if Peikoff is making the statements through his
lawyer in good faith in contemplation of potential litigation, he has
nothing to fear from any defamation claim.
> >Often you settle because you know that the other side's claims have
> >some merit or even because you know that you will probably lose at trial.
>
> "Often" is not always. I wouldn't even say that it's "most of the time," in
> this age of defensive lawsuits, where delays, motions, and discovery are
> often
> pursued simply to engender more delays, rather than for substantive reasons.
Of course often is not always. It's often. <g> And there are certainly
cases in which a defendant will offer a settlement in the amount of the
estimated legal fees and expenses that he will have to occur to defend
(and defeat) what he regards as a meritless lawsuit. I take no position,
at this time, on the settlements involved here because I simply don't
know all the facts. For the same reason, I object to speculation and
spin here -- on both sides -- about why the earlier cases settled.
> Have you gathered nothing from what Clinton has done to try to block Starr?
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. In this case, Clinton has
certainly tried to delay and obstruct Starr's investigation. The tactics
of delay and obstruction are usually engaged in by defendants who are
essentially guilty as charged, whether in the civil context or the
criminal context. The innocent have every incentive to get to the full
truth as quickly as possible.
> >Settlement is often the act of attempting to cut your losses. A
> >stipulation that a settlement is without admission of liability is, in
> >many if not most cases, little more than a face-saving measure by a
> >defendant who knows that he is in serious legal trouble.
> No, it isn't. It's meant to be taken literally: Nothing is admitted that
> could
> be seized upon to benefit other (often parallel) actions, and this is not
> being left to implications. It's instrumental, not merely "face-saving."
I agree, but the fact that a party refuses to ADMIT liability doesn't
mean that he isn't liable or that the other party cannot prove that he is
liable if the case ultimately goes to trial. It simply means that the
fact of settlement cannot be used as an admission of liability in any
subsequent civil or criminal action.
> The "facts of the case" are not being adjudicated, period -- that's the p
> oint.
> In the eyes of the court, you don't have the facts falling either way. You
> merely have a withdrawal from the battlefield.
Right. That's exactly what it means, which is why I don't attach much
value to such a provision. The settling defendant doesn't say, in
effect, "I didn't do it." He typically says, "I don't admit that I did
do it."
> >As a general rule, when a party agrees to settle a case by essentially
> >giving his opponent what he is asking for (in this case, return of
> >property that allegedly was wrongfully taken or possessed by the
> >defendant), chances are that the other party had a very good claim.
> That may be ... but what does this have to do with either piece of litiga
> tion
> that Peikoff had indulged in?
Nothing specifically, except that the inference that the claims were
meritorious is reasonable -- as is the opposite inference that
Brandon/Hesson did not want to incur the time and expense of disputing
Peikoff's claim. Given the choice between these two competing
inferences, and knowing virtually nothing else about the dispute, I would
be more inclined to give more weight to the former rather than the
latter, but I am open to contrary evidence.
> In 1987, he didn't stop what Hessen did with his Rand newsletter stock or
> other business assets. They stayed with Laissez Faire Books. If anything, he
> paid Peikoff to buzz off.
Possibly. Or maybe he paid Peikoff off because he knew that Peikoff's
claim had merit. I don't know one way or the other.
> In 1991, he didn't take the original Rand interview tapes out of Branden's
> hands (for her lifetime, allowing for her own use, at any rate). She made a
> minimal concession in order for him to buzz off.
Same comment.
> >Is it? Or is it just their self-serving spin on what actually happened?
> >I really don't know one way or the other, and you probably don't, either,
> >unless you were much closer to the case than I think you were.
> Some of this is on open record. You can obtain Branden's detailed discussion
> of her situation (about the tapes) as part of a lengthy interview provide
> d to
> "Liberty" magazine subscribers. Inquire about it at LibertySoft.com.
Thanks. And where can I go to get Peikoff's version of the story?
> Some of this is my own research. I'm not about to say where I obtained some
> details ... but neither are you obliged to believe me simply on my saying
> so.
> Nonetheless, more of it hangs together with common sense than you seem to
> care
> to admit.
Your inferences of what happened are certainly reasonable. So are the
opposite inferences. The known facts so far do not point conclusively to
either set of inferences. I need more information before I can make up
my own mind.
> >>(The latter case noted above is that of the Palo Alto Book Service,
> >>in which Peikoff clearly had no pursuable case for retrieval of the
> >>"things" involved. [...])
>
> >How do you know, especially in light of the settlement of that case? [...]
>
> Because if his case was any stronger, and if a contract existed that
> limited Hessen's resale rights for his Rand material, Peikoff could have
> pursued an injunction to seize it from Laissez Faire Books. He didn't choose
> to do so. He went solely after Hessen.
Getting an injunction is an extraordinary step -- especially in a breach
of contract case in which Peikoff could also sue for damages in lieu of
an injunction. I would also like to know if Peikoff threatened to sue
for injunctive relief (or actually sued for injunctive relief) and the
settlement was intended to resolve any such claim.
> >>Branden and Hessen cannot reproduce the letters from Peikoff's lawyer
> >>without running the risk (small as it may be in practice) of an action for
> >>copyright infringement.
> >Oh yes they can. This excuse is, in my opinion, even more bogus than
> >any alleged fear of a defamation claim. If Peikoff pursues such a
> >copyright infringement claim, the most likely result is that the judge
> >will sanction him and his lawyer for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
> You don't know how seriously this is taken, do you? Especially when prote
> cted
> attorney-client matters are at risk? Nor is copyright taken as the relati
> vely
> inconsequential issue that you've been suggesting it is this week.
I don't know how seriously any such possibility IS taken. I do,
however, have a very good idea how seriously such a possibility SHOULD be
taken. Let's just say that you have a better chance of dying on
Mars than you do of losing a copyright infringement suit arising out
of the publication of a letter from your opponent in actual or
threatened litigation. Also, I don't see how protected attorney-client
matters enter the picture. We are talking about an exchange of letters
between OPPOSING counsel. These communications are not protected or
privileged because of "attorney-client" matters.
> If Peikoff wanted to hamstring them, he could file such an action -- and it
> could be a long, expensive discovery road before it's thrown out as being
> "frivolous," or on summary judgment. Why should they encourage that?
There are rules of procedure that, at least in theory, are designed to
prevent, discourage, and punish such tactics. One such rule authorizes a
court to order the losing party and/or his lawyer to pay the legal fees
and expenses of the winner as a sanction for filing a groundless lawsuit.
Also, in the "what's sauce for the goose" department, they can file
counterclaims for abuse of process, defamation, and related claims that
could expose Peikoff to significant liability of his own. Holzer
threatened to do just that in his letter.
[Portion omitted]
> I posted some facts a couple weeks back that add credence to their claims,
> including Beatrice Hessen's record (following her husband) of having worked
> for Rand as her secretary and on her newsletters. It's germane, though of
> course not conclusive. Did you bother to read it?
Yeah, I did. It's germane -- but not conclusive. I don't think you
disagree with me here, right? I would like to hear what evidence Peikoff
has, if any, that would support any contention that Brandon/Hesson are
not the rightful owners of the papers. I would really like to see
Peikoff's letter. If he refuses to publish it (including giving
pretextual reasons for not doing so), I will hold that fact against him.
[Portion omitted]
> What is operative here is that Peter Schwartz's book service is being giv
> en a
> pass from being consistent, even on Peikoff's own premises.
That was my point in discussing the Van Doren book.
[Portion omitted]
> Why else would Schwartz be allowed to pull a Gus Webb alteration on Rand's
> book "The New Left," not merely adding his own essays and introduction, but
> changing its -title- when re-published this Winter? ("Return to Primitivism:
> The Anti-Industrial Revolution")
This is news to me. I would leave that book alone.
Ken
Steve Reed
ways of construing what a settlement signifies. We won't get something that
begins to be authoritative in this forum, not unless an attorney pops in to
make some comments. Nonetheless, on a few points:
>>>As a general rule, when a party agrees to settle a case by essentially
>>>giving his opponent what he is asking for (in this case, return of
>>>property that allegedly was wrongfully taken or possessed by the
>>>defendant), chances are that the other party had a very good claim.
>>That may be ... but what does this have to do with either piece of
>>litigation that Peikoff had indulged in?
>Nothing specifically, except that the inference that the claims were
>meritorious is reasonable -- [...]
Fine, then -- since none of the property was returned to Peikoff (or at all
close to being done so on his terms), are you willing to infer that his
earlier claims were not likely to be wholly "meritorious"? Will you accept
what your stand implies?
>[...] as is the opposite inference that Branden/Hessen did not want
>to incur the time and expense of disputing Peikoff's claim[s].
As I see it, that's about all that is reasonable to infer from the fact of any
settlement -as such.- In the same way, Peikoff was unlikely to want to take on
the expense to press his claim. Anything else is -not decided.- That's the
point of a settlement.
What I discern is that you're willing to bend over backwards to suggest that
Peikoff wouldn't press such actions without good reason. You're not quite as
impartial as you are making yourself out to be. (I freely admit that I'm not
giving him the benefit of the doubt, to say the least -- though that doesn't
mean I shut myself off from any facts. He's shown his abysmal character.)
What I also am seeing is a reluctance to admit just how frequently the courts
are being used as bludgeons, by those who know they have no case, but know
that others will often pay to get out of the way of a brief-filing attorney.
>>Some of this is on open record. You can obtain Branden's detailed discussion
>>of her situation (about the tapes) as part of a lengthy interview provide
>>d to
>>"Liberty" magazine subscribers. Inquire about it at LibertySoft.com.
>Thanks. And where can I go to get Peikoff's version of the story?
Why don't you ask him? (com...@pwni.com) He's the one who is whining about
not having an outlet for his side, when he's not choosing to -use- what he
has. Maybe he's started to use his mind to begin doing so. In any case, I
pointed you to OldFop.org, where you can get his lawyer's address, if you want
to try for her letters.
[About Peikoff, his lawyer's letters, and possible copyright claims]
>>You don't know how seriously this is taken, do you? Especially when
>>protected attorney-client matters are at risk? Nor is copyright taken as
>>the relatively inconsequential issue that you've been suggesting it is
>>this week.
>I don't know how seriously any such possibility IS taken. [...]
Since all you have to offer is how you think "it should be taken," and the
same assertions about such copyright being trivial, we'll skip ahead.
>[...] Also, I don't see how protected attorney-client matters enter
>the picture. We are talking about an exchange of letters between
>OPPOSING counsel. These communications are not protected or
>privileged because of "attorney-client" matters. [...]
It seems, on second look, that I was misreading some of the items on the
OldFop.org Website. I thought I had read that Holzer implied a possibility for
suing Peikoff -and his attorney- separately if a defamation action arose. That
was incorrect, and I also was mixing issues.
If having two separate defendants -had- been in the offing, the issue of
attorney-client privilege (which is not absolute) may have been brought up
and, possibly, broken by the court, in order to determine -who- was
responsible for inciting the defamation.
>I would like to hear what evidence Peikoff has, if any, that would
>support any contention that Brandon/Hesson [...]
I avoid spelling flames, but this is a rare exception. Please spell their
names correctly. You didn't do so at all in your post. See the subject line.
>[...] are not the rightful owners of the papers. I would really like to
>see Peikoff's letter. If he refuses to publish it (including giving
>pretextual reasons for not doing so), I will hold that fact against him.
He has (on reports of what he said on the radio), and you should.
Ken Gardner
<Stev...@earthling.net> says...
> Most of Gardner's last reply indicates that he and I have
> notably different ways of construing what a settlement
> signifies.
Right. We sure do.
[Portion omitted]
> Fine, then -- since none of the property was returned to Peikoff (or at all
> close to being done so on his terms), are you willing to infer that his
> earlier claims were not likely to be wholly "meritorious"? Will you accept
> what your stand implies?
Sure. In most cases, a settlement signifies that both sides of the case
have at least some merit. When you evaluate whether to settle a claim,
you have to take into account your likelihood of winning as well as what
you can reasonably expect to get if you prevail at trial. You also have
to take into account the time and expense involved in litigating the
matter.
[Portion omitted]
> What I discern is that you're willing to bend over backwards to suggest that
> Peikoff wouldn't press such actions without good reason.
I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt -- which is arguably
more than, say, you or Chris. However, I am not willing to assume, based
on what I know (or, more precisely, do not know) about the dispute, that
he is right and Branden/Hessen are wrong. Or vice-versa. I want to know
what the underlying facts are, and then I will form my conclusion based
on the facts.
> You're not quite as impartial as you are making yourself out to be.
Says you.
> (I freely admit that I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt,
> to say the least -- though that doesn't mean I shut myself off
> from any facts. He's shown his abysmal character.)
Same comment.
> What I also am seeing is a reluctance to admit just how frequently the co
> urts
> are being used as bludgeons, by those who know they have no case, but know
> that others will often pay to get out of the way of a brief-filing attorney.
I am not persuaded that the abuse is as widespread as you seem to think
it is. Not even close.
> >Thanks. And where can I go to get Peikoff's version of the story?
> Why don't you ask him? (com...@pwni.com) He's the one who is whining about
> not having an outlet for his side, when he's not choosing to -use- what he
> has. Maybe he's started to use his mind to begin doing so. In any case, I
> pointed you to OldFop.org, where you can get his lawyer's address, if you
> want
> to try for her letters.
Fair enough. And I have already said that if he does not make his own
letter public, I will certainly hold that fact against him.
[Portion omitted]
> It seems, on second look, that I was misreading some of the items on the
> OldFop.org Website. I thought I had read that Holzer implied a possibilit
> y for
> suing Peikoff -and his attorney- separately if a defamation action arose.
> That
> was incorrect, and I also was mixing issues.
It would be very difficult to sue Peikoff or his attorney in this
situation, I.e. in the context of statements made in a letter from a
lawyer, written in contemplation or anticipation of litigation.
> If having two separate defendants -had- been in the offing, the issue of
> attorney-client privilege (which is not absolute) may have been brought up
> and, possibly, broken by the court, in order to determine -who- was
> responsible for inciting the defamation.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Attorney-client privilege simply
does not apply to communications to or from your adversary.
> >I would like to hear what evidence Peikoff has, if any, that would
> >support any contention that Brandon/Hesson [...]
> I avoid spelling flames, but this is a rare exception. Please spell their
> names correctly. You didn't do so at all in your post. See the subject line.
Totally unintentional on my part.
> >[...] are not the rightful owners of the papers. I would really like to
> >see Peikoff's letter. If he refuses to publish it (including giving
> >pretextual reasons for not doing so), I will hold that fact against him.
> He has (on reports of what he said on the radio), and you should.
And I do.
Ken
Jim Klein
time to read them. This is just meant to clarify a couple points.
In <MPG.1092afd7b...@news.dallas.net> Ken Gardner
<ke...@dallas.net> writes:
>
>In article <70ao4r$ac7$1...@nw003t.infi.net>, Steve Reed
><Stev...@earthling.net> says...
>If what Peikoff is saying is true -- which is all that really matters
>here, or will matter in court -- then it makes no difference how he
>chooses to say it.
That's right.
>Having said that, I would like to see his letter, in part to see what
>provoked such a hysterical, unprofessional response from Holzer.
Even ignoring your hyperbole about Holzer, this is irrelevant to your
previous sentence. IF WHAT PEIKOFF IS SAYING IS TRUE, then he has no
reason to not publish his counsel's letter. Correct?
Yet he isn't publishing it, correct?
I believe that in formal logic, this is known as denying the
consequent, and validly implies negation of the antecedent.
>Often you settle because you know that the other side's claims have
>some merit or even because you know that you will probably lose at
>trial.
Misleading. _Sometimes_ you settle for this reason.
>Settlement is often the act of attempting to cut your losses. A
>stipulation that a settlement is without admission of liability is, in
>many if not most cases, little more than a face-saving measure by a
>defendant who knows that he is in serious legal trouble.
Ditto. _Sometimes_, that's the reason.
>To be sure, in some cases the defendant merely wants to save on legal
>fees.
No shit; this is undoubtedly the #1 reason for settlements, completely
distinct from any merits of the case whatsoever. At $250-$350 per
hour, it's little wonder why!
>My point, however, is that you should not read too much into these
>stipulations.
This is grossly unreasonable. You don't know how much to read into
_any_ of them; discretion (as well as law) should lead you to take
them at face value, or discard them completely. You're taking the
_only_ unreasonable approach IMO--taking them to mean the opposite of
what they say.
>Virtually all settlement agreements have them, even when the facts of
>the case are otherwise.
And even when they're not otherwise. What happened to your "reducible
to perceptible axioms?"
>As a general rule, when a party agrees to settle a case by essentially
>giving his opponent what he is asking for (in this case, return of
>property that allegedly was wrongfully taken or possessed by the
>defendant), chances are that the other party had a very good claim.
That's just plainly false, as demonstrated by the reasonable assumption
that the #1 reason by far for settlement is legal fees.
>>Part of Branden and Hessen's point in choosing to raise a defense
>>fund this time has been that they chose, in these past cases, to make
>>a settlement rather than have themselves be bankrupted with legal
>>fees. That is no admission that Peikoff had a valid case. It was a
>>choice to avoid a greater potential loss.
>
>Is it?
Yes.
>Or is it just their self-serving spin on what actually happened?
You're addressing the wrong point. Steve's claim was that "part of
Branden and Hessen's point..." and that is completely accurate. As to
whether _their_ point is true, is a different question.
>I really don't know one way or the other, and you probably don't,
>either, unless you were much closer to the case than I think you were.
We know that's their claim, though we may not know if the claim is true
(but Steve might). Regardless, your implicit assumptions that their
claim is false and that their settlement was due to a weak case, are
completely without merit. I think the word is "arbitrary."
>> To quote from Holzer's original letter:
>
>>"Unlike in the past, neither Ms. Branden nor Dr. Hessen will submit
>>to your clients' spurious, bullying assertions as to what rights he
>>purports to possess. Each of my clients now recognizes that their
>>cooperation with Peikoff in the past has only emboldened him, and
>>they are determined this time not to cave in to his threats."
>
>Same comment, in essence. Or, maybe this time Holzer has a stronger
>case (or so he thinks -- maybe you would trust his legal judgment,
>although I wouldn't based on what I saw in his letter).
Same response; this is arbitrary on your part.
[skip to the only point I really cared about here, anyway...]
>>It appears that they consider the letter to contain defamatory
>>statements, such as (to infer from Holzer's statements about it)
>>allegations about possible outright theft and burglary of
>>manuscripts. So they are saying that if Peikoff chooses to publish
>>it, they will pursue such action. That isn't stopping him because he
>>-publishes.- Leave it to him to make an impression that Branden and
>>Hessen want to suppress his free speech ... poor baby!
>
>Here, I tend to agree. I don't think that publishing the letter would
>expose Peikoff to any serious defamation claim any more than Holzer's
>letter exposes HIS clients to any such claim (much less a "copyright
>infringement" claim). Peikoff should publish the letter.
This is why your prognosis is for possible existence as a rational
being; the disease hasn't become terminal in your case. Still, you
vastly understate the importance of this point.
I'll present it backwards, so you'll see. If Peikoff is an honorable
person and has made no false charges or implications, then what
possible reason could he have for not releasing the letter?
WHAT POSSIBLE REASON??? This is very, very important as I see it.
I can come up with only two. One is that the charges AREN'T true, and
so he may be subject to a libel action. Since I believe that the truth
is always a defense against libel, the only other reason I can imagine
is that the wording is such that perhaps he's embarrassed. Normally
I'd say that's not such a terrible reason, but not here. Firstly,
there is great cause (given the nature of the battle) to have the facts
out in the open. Plus, there's a reasonably important issue as to
whether the Air of Objectivism ought to be motivated by concerns of
embarrasssment. Personally, I think not.
Now, it's possible I haven't imagined every reason for Peikoff not
releasing the letter. If so, then I'd sure like to see someone present
one or two. Otherwise, it seems at least plausible to consider that
the reason Peikoff won't release it, is because it contains false
charges and will open him up to a libel suit.
I hope this is already addressed in subsequent posts, and wish that I
could find out now. But I can't, so I won't.
jk
David Hayes
>Because if [Peikoff's] case was any stronger, and if a contract existed
that
>limited Hessen's resale rights for his Rand material, Peikoff could have
>pursued an injunction to seize it from Laissez Faire Books. He didn't
choose
>to do so. He went solely after Hessen.
Steve, you don't have your facts straight. Peikoff did pursue action
against Laissez-Faire Books. He said so in the very same October 14, 1986
letter that I quoted in my previous post and about which you claimed to
remember. Here is what you wrote:
Reed wrote in message <70ao4r$ac7$1...@nw003t.infi.net>...
>Did [Peikoff] mean to imply that he had an agreement to restrict the
parties
>to whom Bob Hessen could sell the assets of his business? ...
>When I saw the
>quoted letter in 1986, I thought then that this mere contractual detail
(not!)
>was something that he wouldn't hesitate to mention, if it had existed.
Here is what Dr. Peikoff wrote in that letter:
"Some time ago, Robert and Beatrice Hessen wrote you that they had sold Palo
Alto Book Service to Laissez Faire Books. In their letter, they urged
Objectivists to patronize the new buyer. I wish to inform you, however,
that this sale took place despite my explicit and emphatic opposition and
constitutes a violation of my property rights. Accordingly, I am now suing
the Hessens for breach of contract, and am demanding taht the sale be
rescinded. I am also suing Laissez Faire Books."
Reed also wrote:
>Don't confuse the presence of reproductions of a few Rand fiction
manuscript
>pages, in the Second Renaissance editions of Rand's newsletters, with any
>access by -Branden and Hessen- to such manuscripts. Those were added to the
>volumes that Peter Schwartz had chosen to print, to create sales hype.
I don't know of anyone who has confused the "reproductions of a few Rand
fiction manuscript pages, in the Second Renaissance editions of Rand's
newsletters, with any access by Hessen to such manuscripts." The manuscript
pages were of 1940s and 1950s materials ("Atlas," "Fountainhead" and a
then-unpublished essay (this latter was offered typeset, not in
manuscript)). They were only in the editions that were issued to supercede
the Palo Alto editions. However, despite the implication that the presence
of these pages offered an advatage to Schwartz, the Schwartz-offered
editions did not offer what could not be had for the same money by someone
shopping both Laissez-Faire and Schwartz's Intellectual Activist. Schwartz
priced each of his bound volumes of periodicals ("Objectivist Newsletter,"
"Objectivist" and "Ayn Rand Letter") at $5.00 more than the editions offered
by Laissez-Faire (which kept the same prices established by Palo Alto).
True, Schwartz offered as endpapers the reproductions of Rand manuscript
pages, but these same pages were also offered as a booklet by Schwartz,
under the title "The Rational Faculty," for about $15.00 (it may have been
$14.95, but nonetheless was a price that made it a toss-up -- from a
financial standpoint -- as to which company from which to buy the bound
periodicals).
David Hayes
<70d9ld$rmn$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>Steve Reed wrote:
>>Don't confuse the presence of reproductions of a few Rand fiction
>manuscript
>>pages, in the Second Renaissance editions of Rand's newsletters, with any
>>access by -Branden and Hessen- to such manuscripts. Those were added to
the
>>volumes that Peter Schwartz had chosen to print, to create sales hype.
>
>fiction manuscript pages, in the Second Renaissance editions of Rand's
manuscript
>pages were of 1940s and 1950s materials ("Atlas," "Fountainhead" and a
>then-unpublished essay (this latter was offered typeset, not in
>manuscript)).
Lest there be any confusion on this point, the Branden/Hessen auction
announcements (as has been pointed out in this newsgroup) state that these
individuals are in possession of the bulk of Rand's nonfiction dated
1962-1976, plus the one twenty-nine page section from "Atlas Shrugged." I
did not originally consider it necessary to spell out that fact to
differentiate their offerings from the mostly-1940s materials reprinted by
Schwartz. (To be exact, the first page of "Fountainhead" was written in
1938, although the book would not be completed until 1942 and not published
until 1943.) Given how the omission of my explicitly mentioning the
1962-1976 dates might be pounced upon unjustifiably in this newsgroup, I add
this context now.
David Hayes
>It is suggested above that Barbara Branden and Robert Hessen would not be
>filing a frivolous lawsuit inasmuch as they would be concerned that they
>maintain good names for themselves lest they ruin the chance for future
>employment. However, age already is a barrier to employment. Barbara
>Branden was a college student when she met Ayn Rand in 1950, so we should
>figure that she is now forty-eight years older than the age of the youngest
>college student. Her younger cousin Leonard Peikoff was 17 when he met Ayn
>Rand in 1951 and is now either age 65 or within a few months of that age.
>(He said he was within months of age 65 on his radio program some time
>back.)
When I wrote the above last night, I did not know Leonard's age or
birthdate. I now do. On his program today, he said that the latest papal
encyclical (which was the subject of his second hour) was a birthday present
to him, it having been released on October 15, which is Leonard's birthday.
Given that Leonard was 17 in the summer of 1951, and his next birthday was
October 15, 1951, it was on that date he became 18. Adding 47 years brings
us to last Thursday, when Leonard reached 65.
--
David Hayes
Excise "excise" if responding by private email.
David Hayes
Incidentally, I have yet to pay any money to hear the radio program on the
internet.
--
David Hayes
Excise "excise" if responding by private email.
Steve Reed
>Steve Reed wrote:
>>Because if [Peikoff's] case was any stronger, and if a contract existed
>>that limited Hessen's resale rights for his Rand material, Peikoff could have
>>pursued an injunction to seize it from Laissez Faire Books. He didn't
>>choose to do so. He went solely after Hessen.
>Steve, you don't have your facts straight. Peikoff did pursue action
>against Laissez-Faire Books. He said so in the very same October 14,
>1986 letter that I quoted in my previous post and about which you claimed
>to remember. Here is what you wrote:
I didn't have it in front of me, as you apparently do, so you have a point.
But only part of a point (see below).
>>Did [Peikoff] mean to imply that he had an agreement to restrict the
>>parties to whom Bob Hessen could sell the assets of his business? ...
>>When I saw the quoted letter in 1986, I thought then that this mere
>>contractual detail (not!) was something that he wouldn't hesitate to
>>mention, if it had existed.
Remember, also, that in the portion of Peikoff's letter that you quoted, all
that he talked about was that he (and Rand) had an agreement that the Hessens
would not sell books that "opposed Objectivism" or attacked Rand. As I asked
above, was anything mentioned about -selling the business-? That is not the
same issue.
Or, since you have that letter at hand, did Peikoff say anything about making
a case based on his holding Rand's copyrights? I don't recall that he did. He
hasn't shied away from this in other venues.
>Here is what Dr. Peikoff wrote in that letter:
>"Some time ago, Robert and Beatrice Hessen wrote you that they had sold
>Palo Alto Book Service to Laissez Faire Books. In their letter, they urged
>Objectivists to patronize the new buyer. I wish to inform you, however,
>that this sale took place despite my explicit and emphatic opposition and
>constitutes a violation of my property rights. Accordingly, I am now suing
>the Hessens for breach of contract, and am demanding that the sale be
>rescinded. I am also suing Laissez Faire Books."
That he said he had a contract is not evidence -- or not conclusive evidence.
He can sue on the basis of an asserted verbal contract. Whether he would get
very far is another matter. If he had a genuine written agreement, he would (I
suggest) have said -at that time- that he did, to make his case unequivocal.
Saying that one is suing for breach of contract is not the same thing as
establishing that one -has- a contract. And this was a matter of persuading
third parties that he was talking sense.
In any case, he was leaving out potential support for his case (if he had a
written agreement), which is what I didn't remember perfectly.
But he also was being inexact. The assets of the sale -apart from the Rand
materials- were none of the proper business for him even to start a lawsuit.
What must have occurred to him quite quickly was the impossibility of
separating the portion of the mailing list solely growing from Rand-book
inquiries from the portion that the Hessens grew with their own efforts. As I
said before, Peikoff didn't run their business.
And whatever he ended up pursuing against Laissez Faire, if anything -- and as
far as my own (long-distance) inquiries indicated at the time -- it was not a
request for an injunction. He was attempting to squeeze money from Hessen. If
he really cared about the "wrong" people selling those Rand newsletters and
other materials, he would have tried to enjoin their -act- of doing so, rather
than (or along with) his seeking damages. LFB was not his ultimate target, and
nothing ended up changing in what they owned or sold.
Ken Gardner
<rum...@ix.netcom.com> says...
[Portion omitted]
> IF WHAT PEIKOFF IS SAYING IS TRUE, then he has no
> reason to not publish his counsel's letter. Correct?
Or, to be more precise, no GOOD reason not to publish his letter exists
as far as I know -- granted, however, that Peikoff is much closer to the
dispute than I or anyone else here is and, therefore, is in a better
position to make this judgment than you or me. More to follow below.
> Yet he isn't publishing it, correct?
Correct. But the fact that he is not publishing his letter doesn't
NECESSARILY mean that his claim is false. He could have other reasons
for not publishing the letter, even if I disagree with what these reasons
are.
[Portion omitted]
> >Often you settle because you know that the other side's claims have
> >some merit or even because you know that you will probably lose at
> >trial.
> Misleading. _Sometimes_ you settle for this reason.
I don't think that what I said is misleading. If you want to quibble
with my choice of words -- I could have used "sometimes" to make exactly
the same point -- knock yourself out.
Having said that, however, I believe that "often" is more precise here
than "sometimes" ; I.e. I happen to believe that many if not most
disputes that have risen to the level of actual or threatened litigation
settle either because the outcome is uncertain (I.e. the claims of both
sides have at least some merit) or because the settling party knows that
he will probably lose if he continues to litigate the claim through
trial.
> >To be sure, in some cases the defendant merely wants to save on legal
> >fees.
> No shit; this is undoubtedly the #1 reason for settlements, completely
> distinct from any merits of the case whatsoever. At $250-$350 per
> hour, it's little wonder why!
I'm not so sure that this statement is correct as general rule, although
the time and expense of litigation is certainly a factor in deciding
whether to settle a dispute and on what terms. The importance of this
factor will differ from case to case depending on what and how much is at
stake, the law of the relevant jurisdiction that bears upon the dispute
(e.g. whether the jurisdiction has a "loser pays" rule), the nature of
the fee agreement between a party and his lawyer, the relative net worth
of the parties, etc. [Insert "context is everything" here.] And there
are other considerations as well that factor into the decision whether to
settle, such as those mentioned above.
> >My point, however, is that you should not read too much into these
> >stipulations.
> This is grossly unreasonable. You don't know how much to read into
> _any_ of them; discretion (as well as law) should lead you to take
> them at face value, or discard them completely. You're taking the
> _only_ unreasonable approach IMO--taking them to mean the opposite of
> what they say.
These stipulations mean only that a party to the settlement agreement
does not ADMIT the validity (or invalidity) of a claim. Such
stipulations say nothing about the underlying validity or invalidity of
the claim itself. One of the reasons you settle in the first place
(although not the only reason) is to avoid the time, expense, and
uncertainty of litigating the validity or invalidity of the claim.
> >Virtually all settlement agreements have them, even when the facts of
> >the case are otherwise.
> And even when they're not otherwise. What happened to your "reducible
> to perceptible axioms?"
I don't understand your question. I said that virtually all settlement
agreements have such stipulations, regardless of what the underlying
merits of the dispute happen to be. A settlement agreement, in most
cases, is an agreement to disagree on the merits of a dispute, coupled
with an agreement to settle the dispute on mutually agreeable terms
without regard to the merits.
> >As a general rule, when a party agrees to settle a case by essentially
> >giving his opponent what he is asking for (in this case, return of
> >property that allegedly was wrongfully taken or possessed by the
> >defendant), chances are that the other party had a very good claim.
> That's just plainly false, as demonstrated by the reasonable assumption
> that the #1 reason by far for settlement is legal fees.
You are willing to make that assumption. I'm not.
[Portion omitted]
> We know that's their claim, though we may not know if the claim is true
> (but Steve might). Regardless, your implicit assumptions that their
> claim is false and that their settlement was due to a weak case, are
> completely without merit. I think the word is "arbitrary."
I have made no assumptions one way or the other about the strength or
weakness of the particular case that was settled, except to say that if
you offer to settle a dispute by doing essentially everything that the
other side wants, I don't think that I am going way out on a limb in
suggesting, without actually concluding, that the reason MAY be because
they knew that their legal position was untenable. Now, if you have
facts -- not speculation, but FACTS -- pointing to some other
explanation, I would love to know what they are.
> >Same comment, in essence. Or, maybe this time Holzer has a stronger
> >case (or so he thinks -- maybe you would trust his legal judgment,
> >although I wouldn't based on what I saw in his letter).
> Same response; this is arbitrary on your part.
I don't think so.
[Portion omitted]
> I'll present it backwards, so you'll see. If Peikoff is an honorable
> person and has made no false charges or implications, then what
> possible reason could he have for not releasing the letter?
Well, that's been my point all along. Peikoff's failure to publish his
letter certainly opens the door to the Peikoff haters out there
(including here on HPO) to question his motives and good faith. And
what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Branden's and
Hessen's refusal to publish Peikoff's letter along with their
response opens the door for others to question THEIR motives and good
faith.
> WHAT POSSIBLE REASON??? This is very, very important as I see it.
> I can come up with only two. One is that the charges AREN'T true, and
> so he may be subject to a libel action.
If the charges are false, this fact would be a possible reason. However,
even if the charges are false, because Peikoff's lawyer wrote the letter
in anticipation of possible or actual litigation, Branden and Hessen
probably wouldn't have a good libel action, at least unless they can can
show that Peikoff or his lawyer KNEW that the charges were false.
> Since I believe that the truth is always a defense against libel....
It is.
> ....the only other reason I can imagine is that the wording is such that
> perhaps he's embarrassed.
Possibly. But there may be other reasons that you and I don't know about
because we are not close to the actual dispute.
> Normally I'd say that's not such a terrible reason, but not here.
> Firstly, there is great cause (given the nature of the battle) to have
> the facts out in the open.
I agree. I will add only if that the dispute results in litigation, the
facts and the truth WILL come out.
> Plus, there's a reasonably important issue as to
> whether the Air of Objectivism ought to be motivated by concerns of
> embarrasssment. Personally, I think not.
I agree. He should never authorize his lawyer to send a letter that
itself cannot stand up to the rigorous standards of logic and the rest of
the Objectivist epistemology.
> Now, it's possible I haven't imagined every reason for Peikoff not
> releasing the letter. If so, then I'd sure like to see someone present
> one or two. Otherwise, it seems at least plausible to consider that
> the reason Peikoff won't release it, is because it contains false
> charges and will open him up to a libel suit.
One possible innocent reason is that although Peikoff personally believes
that the charges are true, he will be sued for defamation anyway and have
to defend what HE regards as a baseless claim, just as Branden and Hessen
will have to defend what THEY regard as a baseless claim. One reason why
you have lawsuits in the first place is because you have two sides with
very real disagreements about the facts and the law underlying a dispute.
Ken
David Friedman
>I'll present it backwards, so you'll see. If Peikoff is an honorable
>person and has made no false charges or implications, then what
>possible reason could he have for not releasing the letter?
>
>WHAT POSSIBLE REASON??? This is very, very important as I see it.
>
>I can come up with only two. One is that the charges AREN'T true, and
>so he may be subject to a libel action. Since I believe that the truth
>is always a defense against libel, the only other reason I can imagine
>is that the wording is such that perhaps he's embarrassed.
You have left out an obvious third alternative--that the charges are true,
but he doesn't have enough evidence to be confident that he can convince a
jury.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Jim Klein
<davidp_ex...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Peikoff, through his donation, sought to further the work of the Ayn
>Rand Institute, an organization with objectives along the lines of one
>that was announced in an Ayn Rand periodical: the Foundation for the
>New Intellectual.
Feh. It may take a week for me to get through this thread, but I can't
let a line like this sneak by. There is virtually _nothing_ in common
between the ARI and any fundamental of Objectivism.
The ARI--its philosophical approach, its management and its dicta (the
very existence of dicta, as dicta is the opposite of judgement) are ALL
the complete antithesis of the fundamental principles of Objectivism.
I'll leave it as an asssertion (like yours), as the evidence available
on this board alone is overwhelming.
jk
Jim Klein
In <MPG.10944c45f...@news.dallas.net> Ken Gardner
<ke...@dallas.net> writes:
>>>My point, however, is that you should not read too much into these
>>>stipulations.
>
>>This is grossly unreasonable. You don't know how much to read into
>>_any_ of them; discretion (as well as law) should lead you to take
>>them at face value, or discard them completely. You're taking the
>>_only_ unreasonable approach IMO--taking them to mean the opposite of
>>what they say.
>
>These stipulations mean only that a party to the settlement agreement
>does not ADMIT the validity (or invalidity) of a claim. Such
>stipulations say nothing about the underlying validity or invalidity
>of the claim itself.
Yes, that's my point.
>I have made no assumptions one way or the other about the strength or
>weakness of the particular case that was settled, except to say that
>if you offer to settle a dispute by doing essentially everything that
>the other side wants, I don't think that I am going way out on a limb
>in suggesting, without actually concluding, that the reason MAY be
>because they knew that their legal position was untenable.
Yes, but as you point out above...it MAY be that their legal position
was completely tenable. That's my point...we simply don't know, but
you have implied throughout that the settlement was some sort of
evidence for their position NOT being tenable.
Q.E.D.--of three choices (discarding, assuming a meritorious position,
assuming a non-meritorious position), you have taken the least
reasonable of the three. Discarding is the most objective choice, but
assuming a meritorious position is the second--after all, it _was_
their position. Sure, you can make the same argument for the other
position, but you haven't one iota more evidence for it. So the best
you can come up with is a dead heat, but you haven't done that.
I.e., you have offered an arbitrary conclusion.
>Now, if you have facts -- not speculation, but FACTS -- pointing to
>some other explanation, I would love to know what they are.
I don't. But notice that my guess (heretofore unmentioned) about
Peikoff's weak position in that case _wouldn't_ be based upon my
knowledge of the settlement; it would be based on my knowledge of
Peikoff.
You offered the claim that the settlement indicates some weakness on
the part of Branden; you have no basis for that whatsoever. That's
all I was trying to say; I think we've beaten this dead horse enough.
>>I'll present it backwards, so you'll see. If Peikoff is an honorable
>>person and has made no false charges or implications, then what
>>possible reason could he have for not releasing the letter?
>
>Well, that's been my point all along. Peikoff's failure to publish
>his letter certainly opens the door to the Peikoff haters out there
>(including here on HPO) to question his motives and good faith.
It makes me question his honesty, since he says he wants this stuff in
the open, but doesn't place it in the open when the choice is
exclusively his.
Could we get something straight here? I've railed against Peikoff as
much as anyone here, but I'm hardly a "Peikoff hater." Indeed, as I've
written numerous times, I'm rather a Peikoff admirer. Several times
I've written of him as an "epistemologist extraordinaire," as well as
thrown other compliments his way. I mean them all genuinely.
But it was HIS choice not to pursue a career as an epistemologist; it
was HIS choice to direct the ARI; it was HIS choice to lead so many of
Rand's admirers down a path so perversely the opposite of Objectivism
that it almost defies belief. It's as a matter of identification that
I point these things out, _and_ support them with evidence. That's
all. There's no personal animosity; I just think it happens to be an
_extremely_ important philosophical issue.
When the Foundation is cracked, the Building is likely to fall.
jk
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
"But who will guard the guards themselves?"--Juvenal
David Hayes
>>Second Renaissance also sells materials that, arguably, fall in this
>>category. I remember reading a book called The History of Knowledge (I
>>think) advertised by Second Renaissance (although I bought it in a
>>bookstore) in which the author, Charles Van Doren, made the argument that
>>the goals of communism (or Marxism -- it has been a while since I had
>>read the book) were noble, but the means were not. I cannot imagine that
>>Rand would have tolerated such a book even if it was otherwise correct or
>>not inconsistent with Objectivism.
>What is operative here is that Peter Schwartz's book service is being given
a
>pass from being consistent, even on Peikoff's own premises. As is his crony
>Schwartz himself. Quelle surprise.
This argument could only convince someone ignorant about the history of
Objectivism, but inasmuch as such persons might be reading, here goes:
The passage does not divide "hostile to Ayn Rand" from merely "inconsistent
with Objectivism."
Ayn Rand often found value in works of the latter category and her
periodicals contained recommendations of them. The recommendations were
always made with qualification, with exception spelled out on mistaken
premises, yet the works would be praised as having documentation and
analysis too valuable to ignore. Ayn Rand reviewed "Poverty is Where the
Money Is" for the August 1969 issue of "The Objectivist," where Rand took
exception to the book author's contention that corporate greed had caused
all the cost overruns in Job Corps programs, yet praised the book overall
for being "full of little gems" of journalism about altruism and the
anti-poverty programs.
Cautious, positive reviews by other contributors to "The Objectivist" and
"The Objectivist Newsletter" were also published on "Worker's Paradise
Lost," "The World of Andrew Carnegie," "Teaching Montessori in the Home,"
"The Roosevelt Myth," Betty Freidan's "The Feminine Mystique," and several
books of Ludwig von Mises.
Such books were sold via mail-order by Nathaniel Branden Institute during
its operation, and thereafter by the Objectivist Book Service (through ads
in the back cover of "The Objectivist").
Peter Schwartz, in reviewing and selling today's equivalent of those earlier
books (and those earlier books themselves) through his Second Renaissance
Books, merely continues the tradition begun by Ayn Rand. The reviews in his
catalog are at pains to point out, explicate and correct the non-Objectivist
premises in the affected books. (The catalog is online at at
www.rationalmind.com) At times it seems Second Renaissance is more
interested in educating than selling.
I am not familiar specifically with the book "The History of Knowledge," do
not find it in the current Second Renaissance catalog (where I check the
Philosophy section, which is pgs. 10-12), and do not care to look through
past catalogs to see if the review contained the type of qualifiers I've
already stated are not uncommon in the catalog.
>Why else would Schwartz be allowed to pull a Gus Webb alteration on Rand's
>book "The New Left," not merely adding his own essays and introduction, but
>changing its -title- when re-published this Winter? ("Return to
Primitivism:
>The Anti-Industrial Revolution")
"The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution" as an anthology and not as a
work written as an aesthetic whole, is not in the same league as an Ayn Rand
novel or an architectural design. The Gus Webb analogy does not fit it.
The purpose of the 1971 book, as expressed in its introduction, was to make
a case to those young persons open to reason (specifically, college
students) that the intellectual underpinnings of what they were learning
were false and would lead them down a road of misery, poverty, short life
expectancy. Since the publication of the book, the opponents of Objectivism
have changed their tact, have argued along a different line. The "New" Left
is not the NEW Left any longer -- not the NEWEST Left, whatever the old
"New" Left may say. For the book to make its strongest case, it should
address the arguments that today's students are likely to hear. Ayn Rand
isn't around any longer to update the book. Schwartz knew Ayn Rand,
however, and was the principal writers of essays for a publication that Ayn
Rand approved of, wrote for, and recommended to her live audience at her
last public appearance. He is thus is better qualified to do the job than
almost anyone else alive. So far as I know, nothing by Ayn Rand has been
altered for the new edition, and if Schwartz follows the pattern set by the
Peikoff-edited "The Voice of Reason" (which is mostly but not exclusively a
collection of essays by Ayn Rand), the book will clearly identify the author
of each piece.
--
David Hayes
Excise "excise" if replying by private email.
Ron Hickman
R Lawrence
revised and renamed version of Rand's _The New Left_:
> So far as I know, nothing by Ayn Rand has been
>altered for the new edition, and if Schwartz follows the pattern set by the
>Peikoff-edited "The Voice of Reason" (which is mostly but not exclusively a
>collection of essays by Ayn Rand), the book will clearly identify the author
>of each piece.
Although I do not object to either the updating of _The New Left_, or to
releasing books that have a mix of Rand and non-Rand essays, there was one
thing about the pattern set by _The Voice of Reason_ that I do not like.
That is the practice of listing "Ayn Rand" as the author, when the book
contains essays that she not only did not write, but never even read
(because she was dead when they were written). I think _The Voice of
Reason_ should have had "Edited by Leonard Peikoff" as it's primary
attribution, not "Ayn Rand" with the editor and other essayists
subordinated (or else the post-Rand essays should not have been included).
For anthologies that contain material Rand wrote along with other material
that she published in her magazines or otherwise selected (_The Virtue of
Selfishness_, etc.), I don't have a problem with listing her as the author
followed by the usual add-ons about "additional essays by," etc., because
in that case she was both the primary author and the editor, so her name
would be first either way.
This is a very minor gripe, but your post made me think of it.
<Much else omitted with which I agree>
============================================================================
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com>
Ken Gardner
<davidp_ex...@earthlink.net> says...
[Portion omitted]
> I am not familiar specifically with the book "The History of Knowledge," do
> not find it in the current Second Renaissance catalog (where I check the
> Philosophy section, which is pgs. 10-12), and do not care to look through
> past catalogs to see if the review contained the type of qualifiers I've
> already stated are not uncommon in the catalog.
The reason I bought the book in a bookstore was because I saw the blurb
in the Second Renaissance catalog and was intrigued enough to buy it.
The blurb did contain a qualifier that warned about some "dubious" views,
but I thought the book was very good until I got to part in which Van
Doren suggested that communism was a noble ideal. [Insert "Other than
that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" here.]
I did not find the blurb in the Fall 1998 category, either, but it has
appeared in virtually all previous versions.
I am in no way being critical of Second Renaissance. In fact, I have
been a loyal customer and intend to continue as such.
Ken
Ken Gardner
<rum...@ix.netcom.com> says...
[Portion omitted]
> Yes, but as you point out above...it MAY be that their legal position
> was completely tenable. That's my point...we simply don't know, but
> you have implied throughout that the settlement was some sort of
> evidence for their position NOT being tenable.
I was implying no such thing. I was merely responding to those who were
only too willing to draw all inferences -- reasonable AND unreasonable -
- in favor of Branden/Hessen and against Peikoff. Personally, I don't
have a dog in this fight, except that I get irritated every time I see
one of these Peikoff flame wars erupt here with both sides throwing
objectivity, facts, and logic out the window and acting like Clintonista
spin doctors.
[Portion omitted]
> >Now, if you have facts -- not speculation, but FACTS -- pointing to
> >some other explanation, I would love to know what they are.
> I don't.
I'm not surprised. <G> I don't know, either.
> But notice that my guess (heretofore unmentioned) about
> Peikoff's weak position in that case _wouldn't_ be based upon my
> knowledge of the settlement; it would be based on my knowledge of
> Peikoff.
Or, put another way, Bill Clinton says that 2+2=4 and he is a known liar
and scoundrel; therefore, his statement is false in this specific case.
Is that your "logic" here? Or do you stop to consider whether the
statement is true by consulting the facts rather than merely ascertaining
who is making the statement?
> You offered the claim that the settlement indicates some weakness on
> the part of Branden; you have no basis for that whatsoever. That's
> all I was trying to say; I think we've beaten this dead horse enough.
I think you are misunderstanding or mischaracterizing my actual point,
which is that I don't have enough information to form any conclusions
regarding the reasons for the settlement, one way or the other.
> >Well, that's been my point all along. Peikoff's failure to publish
> >his letter certainly opens the door to the Peikoff haters out there
> >(including here on HPO) to question his motives and good faith.
> It makes me question his honesty, since he says he wants this stuff in
> the open, but doesn't place it in the open when the choice is
> exclusively his.
It certainly makes me question whatever legal advice he is getting, but I
need much more solid information before I begin questioning his honesty
as well. The same comment applies to the refusal of Holzer, Branden, or
Hessen to publish Peikoff's letter along with their response. The only
difference is that Peikoff, at least, is not asking for $250,000 to
litigate what looks to me to be a very simple ownership dispute with only
a handful of witnesses and documents.
> Could we get something straight here? I've railed against Peikoff as
> much as anyone here, but I'm hardly a "Peikoff hater."
Yeah. Right. Whatever. And I don't hate the Detroit Red Wings or the
Washington Redskins, either. <VBG>
> Indeed, as I've written numerous times, I'm rather a Peikoff admirer.
Yeah. And I think that the Red Wings are a great team, too. Now, the
Washington Redskins, that's another matter entirely. [Insert "Life is
good" here.]
> Several times I've written of him as an "epistemologist extraordinaire,"
> as well as thrown other compliments his way. I mean them all genuinely.
Maybe I just flat out missed these posts. But I certainly agree with
these comments.
[Remainder omitted]
Ken
Lavos999
[snip]
>> But notice that my guess (heretofore unmentioned) about
>> Peikoff's weak position in that case _wouldn't_ be based upon my
>> knowledge of the settlement; it would be based on my knowledge of
>> Peikoff.
>
>Or, put another way, Bill Clinton says that 2+2=4 and he is a known liar
>and scoundrel; therefore, his statement is false in this specific case.
>Is that your "logic" here? Or do you stop to consider whether the
>statement is true by consulting the facts rather than merely ascertaining
>who is making the statement?
I think you're strawmanning the original poster's position. Of course if a fact
can be externally verified then these verifications are more important that who
said it. But in a case like this, where facts are few and credibility is
central to the issue, we are justified in taking into account the relative
honesty of the participants.
DEATH TOLL
----------
Soviet Union 100,000,000
Little Rock 72
Chappaquiddick 1
Three Mile Island 0
-----------------
Jail To The Chief
Mike Rael
Isn't this situation similar to when Wm.Buckley tapes a TV show,
and after the show is over, refers folks who want a video copy (and who
did not tape their own) to a private company?
I can't see any possible reason why Objectivists would be against
folks who want to profit over their own speeches! If Barbara Branden or
Hessen have no such desire, I have no problem with that--but certainly
would not think of them as better folks or as having better arguments
because of that decision.
As I understand it, whatever constraints there may be about a
direct reproduction of a broadcast product, there is none about
paraphrasing such products. I claim to be absolutely neutral vis-a-vis
this dispute. So, if someone would like to furnish me an exact copy of
Peikoff's radio transcription (for which I would duly send $7 to
Peikoff!), I would be happy to render a detailed and absolutely faithful
paraphrasing of what Peikoff said, at no cost whatsoever to anyone. I am
not talking about a word-by-word translation, but strictly a rendering of
fundamental concepts into my own words. I
would be happy to send it to any confirmed Peikoffian, including Peikoff,
if he or they would be willing to check it out for any possible
inaccuracy. Naturally I would refer readers interested in checking upon
the original source and comparing it to my own rendition, to purchase
same from Peikoff's asrchives.
BTW, is there a software program allowing individuals to program
their computers to record Peikoff's recordings live, in the same way that
VCRs can be programmed in advance to record interesting TV offerings?
best wishes,
Mike
Ron Hickman (Ron.Hickman@-unisys.com-) wrote:
: The show is still free live on the Internet. Only the archive shows cost.
: >That's because we can no longer go to the PWNI web site, and listen to
: >archives of the show, without paying. And there's no way I'm going to pay
: >seven bucks to listen to Peikoff tell his side of the story.
--
Mike Rael, MS, instructional technology
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
owner, COACHING BY PHONE, the rapid way to raise reality-based self-esteem
Chris Wolf
> BTW, is there a software program allowing individuals to program
>their computers to record Peikoff's recordings live, in the same way that
>VCRs can be programmed in advance to record interesting TV offerings?
It's called Net Launch.
DaveL136
>followed by the usual add-ons about "additional essays by," etc., because
>in that case she was both the primary author and the editor, so her name
>would be first either way.
My problem is, why doesn't someone like Schwartz actually write a damn book
with his own name at the top? When I saw the title "The Return Of Primitivism"
with Schwartz's name I was shocked but pleased that this professional writer
had, after some 25 years, finally written an original book. True to form,
however, I found that it was the mere addition of a couple of essays to a
collection of Rands work. If you're going to make your career an appendage on
that of another writer, at least don't be so obvious about it!
Steve Davis
> When I saw the title "The Return Of Primitivism" with Schwartz's
> name I was shocked but pleased that this professional writer
> had, after some 25 years, finally written an original book.
Some of us write and write and write and write and write and write and
don't ever seem to have a finished book we'd want to put our name on!
Paw1015
>My problem is, why doesn't someone like Schwartz actually write a damn book
>with his own name at the top?
The main reason is that he has little talent for writing.
Have you read his works? Would you buy a book if it
was only by him, or any of the other third-tier professional
objectivists.
Though I am not an Objectivist, I will admit that Rand is
one of the greatest and most powerful writers of our
century. But I have yet to finish anything by Schwartz or
Binswanger. How many copies of The Biological Basis
of Telelogical Ideas have been bought? How many people
will be reading it twenty years from now? How many are
reading it now, even?
Well, Amazon.com says the book is 187,684th best seller.
There are one sixth of a million books that sell more than
that Binswanger.
By comparison, the mass market paperback version of
AS is 253th, and the fountainhead is 1088th.
The bestselling book that deals with philosophical subjects
is Tuesdays with Morrie, which is ranked #11. I myself
read it for a class, and do not suggest you make the same
mistake.
Gregory Weston
***Visit Gregory Weston's streamlined java and frames free website***
***poetry, paintings, photography, and a few of my best essays.***
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Steven Smolinski
Paw1015 wrote in message <19981029212146...@ng53.aol.com>...
>How many copies of The Biological Basis
>of Telelogical Ideas have been bought? How many people
>will be reading it twenty years from now? How many are
>reading it now, even?
Well, _The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts_ is Dr Binswanger's
doctoral thesis, if I recall correctly. How many people go through several
printings of their doctoral thesis? Sounds like he did pretty well for
himself, if you ask me.
>Well, Amazon.com says the book is 187,684th best seller.
>There are one sixth of a million books that sell more than
>that Binswanger.
And exactly how many of them were doctoral theses?
Besides, I have heard many of Dr Binswanger's lectures, and I certainly hope
they are edited for print, because they are works of art.
Steve
Paw1015
>Well, _The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts_ is Dr Binswanger's
>doctoral thesis, if I recall correctly. How many people go through several
>printings of their doctoral thesis? Sounds like he did pretty well for
>himself, if you ask me.
>Well, _The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts_ is Dr Binswanger's
>doctoral thesis, if I recall correctly. How many people go through several
>printings of their doctoral thesis? Sounds like he did pretty well for
>himself, if you ask me.
No, 187,684th place it not good by any standard. I'd wager
that the book is a money loser, and would not have been
published if it wasn't subsidized by the ARI
press. But every one of Rand's books, and even Peikoff's
TOP were published by for-profit publishing houses.
>Besides, I have heard many of Dr Binswanger's lectures, and I certainly hope
>they are edited for print, because they are works of art.
Which proves just how subjective are really is. :)
Gregpry Weston
Paw1015
Which proves just how subjective *art* really is. :)
Gregory Weston
John Alway
RE: The Biological Basis of Teleological concepts
> No, 187,684th place it not good by any standard. I'd wager
> that the book is a money loser, and would not have been
> published if it wasn't subsidized by the ARI
> press.
It's a great book regardless of where it stands in terms of sales.
I'm not given to judging the value of a book by number of sales, are
you?
...John
Paw1015
>It's a great book regardless of where it stands in terms of sales.
>I'm not given to judging the value of a book by number of sales, are
>you?
Not at all. My sole criteria in judging a book's value is my
opinion of it.
But that is not what we were discussing. The question was: why is it
that the third-tier objectivists at the ARI never write a book
of their own, but instead attach a small number of their
essays to a large muber of Rand's, or find work that Rand
herself wrote but never published in book form?
My answer is that is what sells. Rand had no place in the
one book Binswanger wrote on his own, and it was a
dismal falure. It is rarely even discussed among objectivists.
And in my opinion, it is almost painful to read, unlike
Rand's nonfiction, which is always a pleasure to read,
especially when she is in her negitive mode, such as in The
New Left, and the latter half of VOS. Brandon is noticibly
worse in that book, though he is still better than Schwartz
and Binswanger.
I'd be interested in your opinion, Mr. Alway. Do you think
that Schwartz and Binswanger could be successful authors
like NB, Robert Hessen, and David Kelley are?
John Alway
>
> John Alway writes:
>
> >It's a great book regardless of where it stands in terms of sales.
> >I'm not given to judging the value of a book by number of sales, are
> >you?
>
> Not at all. My sole criteria in judging a book's value is my
> opinion of it.
>
> But that is not what we were discussing. The question was: why is it
> that the third-tier objectivists at the ARI never write a book
> of their own, but instead attach a small number of their
> essays to a large muber of Rand's, or find work that Rand
> herself wrote but never published in book form?
I'm not sure what you mean. Peikoff has published two excellent
books. Richard Salsman has written and published two excellent
books. One on banking and the other on the gold standard. Bernstein
is apparently in the process of writing a book on the subject of heroism
and Ayn Rand's fictional characters. He also has written a novel titled
"Swoop". I don't know if it's been published yet, however. Tara Smith
isn't really part of ARI, but she did go to the graduate school they
provide, and she has written a great book on individual rights.
Schwartz started his own newsletter, the Intellectual Activist. Not a
book, but it's a publication of note. Binswanger had a publication for
several years titled "The Objectivist Forum", and of course, his book
The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts, which I consider to be a
superb work, has been published. Of course, you can't take anything
away from those who have published Rand's unpublished writings. They
are all valuable works. At one time would could have included George
Reisman, who has produced his magnum opus "Capitalism". I think we can
still include that, since the split with him wasn't wrt to ideas, but
wrt to a disagreement over some relatively minor issue.
I would love to see more, to be sure. I wish Schwartz would write a
book. Ostensibly that's what he was doing about ten years ago, but
nothing ever game to fruition. And I keep waiting for a great book on
the subject of psycho epistemology. Something that Binswanger could
surely write!
> My answer is that is what sells. Rand had no place in the
> one book Binswanger wrote on his own, and it was a
> dismal falure.
A failure to whom? Not to me. I learned a great deal from that
book. Binswanger is brilliant at knowing how to apply the Objectivist
epistemology to science.
> It is rarely even discussed among objectivists.
People are typically interested in other things more, but it is
discussed by Objectivist more often than you think. In fact, it's come
up in this forum many times.
> And in my opinion, it is almost painful to read, unlike
> Rand's nonfiction, which is always a pleasure to read,
> especially when she is in her negitive mode, such as in The
> New Left, and the latter half of VOS. Brandon is noticibly
> worse in that book, though he is still better than Schwartz
> and Binswanger.
Painful to read? I _loved_ it. The book is lucid, and insightful.
It does, however, require a great deal of intellectual effort to read
it. It's not a novel, it's a technical treatise. I will add that I'm
used to reading technical stuff. I read lots of physics and
engineering texts, for example. The reading isn't always easy, but if
you grasp the idea being conveyed and the idea is worth it, it's a
pleasure.
Btw, Ron Pisaturo, and Glenn Marcus have done some cutting edge work in
the field of mathematics. They applied the Objectivist theory of
concepts to mathematics and established the foundation for numbers, and
for several mathematical operations, and notations, including complex
numbers! This was in the last two issue of the Intellectual
Activist. I can only hope they write a book on the subject!
> I'd be interested in your opinion, Mr. Alway. Do you think
> that Schwartz and Binswanger could be successful authors
> like NB, Robert Hessen, and David Kelley are?
I have no idea, Greg. I can only tell you that Binswanger is one of
my favorite Objectivists and I love his lectures and his
publications. Schwartz has his moments, I have a great lecture by him
on pragmatism, for instance, but sometimes I don't think he ties his
ideas down for the audience as well as he should.
...John
Steve Davis
> At one time would could have included George Reisman, who has
> produced his magnum opus "Capitalism". I think we can
> still include that, since the split with him wasn't wrt to
> ideas, but wrt to a disagreement over some relatively minor issue.
I would definately include _Capitalism_. It is a top rate book, and
expresses Objectivist political/economic views better than any other
book including perhaps Ayn Rand's _Capitalism_.
> I would love to see more, to be sure.
Well, you didn't mention Edwin Locke and Burgess Laughlin. I would
definately rank _The Aristotle Adventure_ up there. Michael Hurd,
Robert Mayhew, and Michael Paxton are also Objectivists and authors.
[The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts]
> The book is lucid, and insightful. It does, however, require a
> great deal of intellectual effort to read it. It's not a novel,
> it's a technical treatise.
I agree; it's excellent TECHNICAL philosophy. That is precisely the
sort of book I would like to see more of from Objectivists. Perhaps
I'll write one. :)
Robert J. Kolker
John Alway wrote:
.....................................snip..................................
..............
> Btw, Ron Pisaturo, and Glenn Marcus have done some cutting edge w
> ork in
> the field of mathematics. They applied the Objectivist theory of
> concepts to mathematics and established the foundation for numbers, and
> for several mathematical operations, and notations, including complex
> numbers! This was in the last two issue of the Intellectual
> Activist. I can only hope they write a book on the subject!
>
I hate to tell you this but a rigorous foundation for real numbers wasprovi
ded by
Dedikind, Cauchy and Cantor in the last century.
Likewise the rigorous topological foundation for complex numbers
was produced in the last century and the early part of this one prior
to the birth of the above named individuals. Mathematics is my field
and I have not seen a cite to any paper by the above named individuals.
Perhaps you can provide some citations to their work in the refereed
literature. Contributions to non-refereed publications do not count
since they are not subject to peer review for accuracy and originality.
The only Objectivist mathematician I know of that publishes in the standard
literature is a fellow by the name of Ross (I forgot his last name). His
field is applied math and numerical methods.
To my best knowlege the contribution of Objectivism to mathematics,
especially its foundations, is zilch. Ayn Rand herself was abismally
ignorant of mathematics, particular more modern mathematics which
is very abstract. She was of the belief that mathematics was concerned
largely with quantity. Nay, nay. Math is mostly about structure and
relations.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Paw1015 wrote:
> I'd be interested in your opinion, Mr. Alway. Do you think
> that Schwartz and Binswanger could be successful authors
> like NB, Robert Hessen, and David Kelley are?
>
David Kelley's book The Evidence of the Senses ranks around179,000 on
Amazon's sale score. He is not do very much better
than Binswanger.
ftb
ftb
ftb
Bob Kolker
John Alway
>
> John Alway wrote:
> .....................................snip..................................
> ..............
>
> > Btw, Ron Pisaturo, and Glenn Marcus have done some cutting edge w
> > ork in
> > the field of mathematics. They applied the Objectivist theory of
> > concepts to mathematics and established the foundation for numbers, and
> > for several mathematical operations, and notations, including complex
> > numbers! This was in the last two issue of the Intellectual
> > Activist. I can only hope they write a book on the subject!
> >
>
> I hate to tell you this but a rigorous foundation for real numbers wasprovi
> ded by
> Dedikind, Cauchy and Cantor in the last century.
Glenn Marcus is a mathematician, MIT educated, and I believe he scored
a perfect score on his SATs. Iows, he is no dummy. He knows math,
and he knows Objectivism. What astounds me about your posting,
though, is that you are pronouncing judgment without ever even having
read their work!
[...]
> To my best knowlege the contribution of Objectivism to mathematics,
> especially its foundations, is zilch.
I continue to wonder why you make this point. Aren't you aware that
Objectivists number perhaps 0.01% of the population? Are you aware
that the philosophy is new as philosophies go? It should also be added
that very little in the way of original work has been done in math in
this century by _anyone_ (I'm not saying there hasn't been any, but not
nearly as much as compared to previous centuries). Given these facts
it's amazing to me the judgments you are pronouncing on Objectivists.
But, note, Marcus and Pisaturo _are_ doing original work. They _are_
making contributions.
Also note that in physics Lewis Little has made head way. Whether he
is right or not has to be determined, but he certainly has investigated
his theory thoroughly.
So, if we find that these three men have what they think they have,
then we will find am amazingly high level performance in the science
from Objectivists given their small over all number relative to the
population at large.
It's only the beginning, Bob.
...John
Paw1015
>David Kelley's book The Evidence of the Senses ranks around179,000 on
>Amazon's sale score. He is not do very much better
>than Binswanger.
I think this may understate it. It was published by a
for profit publisher, and Kelly has another book with
a high ranking that was recently published.
cath...@my-dejanews.com
> I'd be interested in your opinion, Mr. Alway. Do you think
> that Schwartz and Binswanger could be successful authors
> like NB, Robert Hessen, and David Kelley are?
I think it is helpful to ask what you mean here by "successful." If it means
book sales, then the better question to ask is: why do Rand's books
(especially the novels, which continue to be available in hardcover up to
this day) sell so much better than the others do? Are the other Objectivist
authors likely to sell as many as she did? (I think with perhaps the
possible exception of NB, none of the authors you mention sell anywhere near
the number that Rand's books have sold.)
This is rather aside from the issue of "successful" in terms of
"high-quality, intellectually respectable" writing. By that criterion of
"successful" I think there's likely of a case to be made for someone like
Binswanger than for someone like Schwartz. There are also a lot of people
that John Alway mentions whose work I am not very familiar with (with the
exception of Tara Smith's) that might also have high-quality output. And
though he didn't mention non-ARI- affiliated authors, there's some
high-quality output from those as well (e.g. Kelley's _Evidence of the
Senses_).
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John Alway
[...]
> Well, you didn't mention Edwin Locke and Burgess Laughlin. I would
> definately rank _The Aristotle Adventure_ up there. Michael Hurd,
> Robert Mayhew, and Michael Paxton are also Objectivists and authors.
I haven't read any of these authors yet. I have The Ayn Rand Journals
by Harrimen, however.
> [The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts]
> > The book is lucid, and insightful. It does, however, require a
> > great deal of intellectual effort to read it. It's not a novel,
> > it's a technical treatise.
> I agree; it's excellent TECHNICAL philosophy. That is precisely the
> sort of book I would like to see more of from Objectivists. Perhaps
> I'll write one. :)
By all means! Out of curiosity, what is your area of expertise?
...John
DEFanyo
> And I keep waiting for a great book on
> the subject of psycho epistemology. Something that Binswanger could
> surely write!
Oh, golly, gee whiz, right on! I can hardly wait!
Can you give us a working definition of psycho epistemology?
--Dorothy
John Alway
> John Alway wrote:
> > And I keep waiting for a great book on
> > the subject of psycho epistemology. Something that Binswanger could
> > surely write!
> Oh, golly, gee whiz, right on! I can hardly wait!
Yes, I know Dorothy. You don't like Binswanger's work.
> Can you give us a working definition of psycho epistemology?
I'll just quote from the Lexicon: "Psycho-epistemology is the study of
man's cognitive processes from the aspect of the interaction between the
conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious."
This is a subject that Binswanger knows quite a bit about.
...John
Mike Rael
Rand is *impassioned* and she is always a good read. She adds fun
and adventure to almost all her writing, even the nonfictional works as
her "Objectivist Epistemology". She always makes you feel like you're
participating in an adventure in clear thinking.
Schwartz or Binswanger, in comparison, sound like they have logic
but the heart has been taken out of the work. Schwartz's voice sounds at
times shrill, but not impassioned. Neither of them give one any sense of
participating in something new and fun, as if they are inviting us to a
new world. They lay down the law, but do not give of their deeper selves.
best wishes,
Mike
cath...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: Paw1015 <paw...@aol.com> wrote:
: > I'd be interested in your opinion, Mr. Alway. Do you think
: > that Schwartz and Binswanger could be successful authors
: > like NB, Robert Hessen, and David Kelley are?
:
I
think it is helpful to ask what you mean here by "successful." If it means
: book sales, then the better question to ask is: why do Rand's books
: (especially the novels, which continue to be available in hardcover up to
: this day) sell so much better than the others do?
--
Robert J. Kolker
John Alway wrote:
> Glenn Marcus is a mathematician, MIT educated, and I believe he s
> cored
> a perfect score on his SATs. Iows, he is no dummy. He knows math,
> and he knows Objectivism. What astounds me about your posting,
> though, is that you are pronouncing judgment without ever even having
> read their work!
>
>
Which is precisely why I asked you for citations.
As to the rest, what I said about puting the real and
complex numbers on a rigourous basis is dead on
accurate. How can the theory of reals and complex
numbers be made any more rigourous. Is it necessary
to fix what is not broken?
This time I will ask you for citations of the fellows you
mentioned in any journal or publication. This is so I
can see for myself.
>
>
> [...]
>
> > To my best knowlege the contribution of Objectivism to mathematics,
> > especially its foundations, is zilch.
>
> I continue to wonder why you make this point. Aren't you aware that
> Objectivists number perhaps 0.01% of the population? Are you aware
> that the philosophy is new as philosophies go? It should also be added
> that very little in the way of original work has been done in math in
> this century by _anyone_ (I'm not saying there hasn't been any, but not
> nearly as much as compared to previous centuries). Given these facts
> it's amazing to me the judgments you are pronouncing on Objectivists.
Albert Einstein was 1/1,000,000,000 of the population at the time he published
his 3 foundation papers in 1905. In one year Einstein proved beyond reasonable
doubt the atomic nature of matter (his paper on Brownian motion); explained
the photo electric effect and put the particulate theory of light back on t
he map;
completely revamped the classical notions of space and time (On the Electro
Dynamics of Moving Bodies --- special relativity). His originality was *his*,
and not the result of a philosophy which if anything was Machian.
His general theory of relativity published in
1915 was sui generis. Nobody was even close on this.
If Marcuse and Pisaturo are original and do important work it is
to their credit and not to a particular philosphy. Several hundred thousand
folks are Objectivists and don't make original contributions. Why do you
suppose the fact the Marcuse is an Objectivist accounts for any of his
mathematical originality. Thousands of mathematicians are not Objectivist
and they make original important contributions to mathematics. What does
one have to do with the other?
It is you who are claiming it is the Objectivist view of the workers you me
ntion
is what generates their originality. First you have not shown this. Second
from what you mention concerning complex number, their work does not
sound particularly original since the grounding of the reals and the complex
number systems was done thoroughly and correctly before these chaps were
even born. By their fruits shall they be known.
Please give citiations and tell us what makes their contribution of greater
value than that which has gone before.
>
>
> But, note, Marcus and Pisaturo _are_ doing original work. They _are_
> making contributions.
Well and good. What are their contributions? Can you be morespecific. Even a
short summary would be of use in this discussion.
>
>
> Also note that in physics Lewis Little has made head way. Wheth
> er he
> is right or not has to be determined, but he certainly has investigated
> his theory thoroughly.
>
> So, if we find that these three men have what they think they have,
> then we will find am amazingly high level performance in the science
> from Objectivists given their small over all number relative to the
> population at large.
I agree Little has an original point of view. I do not see how it differs all
that much from the Bohm-DeBrogle version of QM which also starts
with waves AND particles this removing the duality. I look forward to
seeing Little's work backed up by experiment (this is the figure of merit
in the physical sciences. Does the theory match the facts. That is the
only thing that counts).
So far, Little's work is the only solid thing I have seen.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Paw1015 wrote:
> Bob Kolker wrote:
>
> >David Kelley's book The Evidence of the Senses ranks around179,000 on
> >Amazon's sale score. He is not do very much better
> >than Binswanger.
>
> I think this may understate it. It was published by a
> for profit publisher, and Kelly has another book with
> a high ranking that was recently published.
I checked in Amazon. The book is entitled A Life of One's Ownand it is a
critique of the Welfare State. It ranks between 6,000
and 7,000. I suspect it sells better because it is on a political
topic as opposed to a philisophical-technical topic.
The only way to see how Binswanger would do is for him to
write a book with a political thrust.
Bob Kolker
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> David Kelley's book The Evidence of the Senses ranks around 179,000 on
> Amazon's sale score. He is not do very much better
> than Binswanger.
Yeah, he's doing much better with his TV shows than with his books. Love
that "Ally McBeal"...
-- M. Ruff
John Alway
>
> John Alway wrote:
>
> > Glenn Marcus is a mathematician, MIT educated, and I believe he s
> > cored
> > a perfect score on his SATs. Iows, he is no dummy. He knows math,
> > and he knows Objectivism. What astounds me about your posting,
> > though, is that you are pronouncing judgment without ever even having
> > read their work!
> Which is precisely why I asked you for citations.
The only place I know that it's published is in The Intellectual
Activist. Their first articles were titled "The Foundations of
Mathematics", July and September 1994. There last two articles, part
one and two of "Mathematics In One Lesson", are in the September and
October issues. You can purchase back issues at this url:
http://www.IntellectualActivist.com/tia/backissues.html.
> As to the rest, what I said about puting the real and
> complex numbers on a rigourous basis is dead on
> accurate. How can the theory of reals and complex
> numbers be made any more rigourous. Is it necessary
> to fix what is not broken?
Apparently they don't think it's tied down as well as it could be.
Glenn Marcus used to be a professor of mathematics at a city
university, where he found first hand that other professors couldn't tie
their methods down to reality.
Pisaturo puts the point this way: "The prevailing schools of thought
in the profession of mathematics have fulfilled their own philosophical
prophesy: They can validate neither the foundation of their science nor
the meaning of their methods."
And, so, with that in mind, their goal is to establish the foundations
for math from an Objectivist view point.
The value of this, of course, is that it makes math far more
understandable, and allows for much more rigorous advancement of the
science.
> This time I will ask you for citations of the fellows you
> mentioned in any journal or publication. This is so I
> can see for myself.
> > [...]
> > > To my best knowlege the contribution of Objectivism to mathematics,
> > > especially its foundations, is zilch.
> > I continue to wonder why you make this point. Aren't you awar
> > e that
> > Objectivists number perhaps 0.01% of the population? Are you aware
> > that the philosophy is new as philosophies go? It should also be added
> > that very little in the way of original work has been done in math in
> > this century by _anyone_ (I'm not saying there hasn't been any, but not
> > nearly as much as compared to previous centuries). Given these facts
> > it's amazing to me the judgments you are pronouncing on Objectivists.
>
> Albert Einstein was 1/1,000,000,000 of the population at the time he pub
> lished
> his 3 foundation papers in 1905. In one year Einstein proved beyond reas
> onable
> doubt the atomic nature of matter (his paper on Brownian motion); explained
> the photo electric effect and put the particulate theory of light back on t
> he map;
Imagine that there were only one Objectivist, and he were brilliant at
physics, would you then complain to that there aren't any great
Objectivist contributors to biology and math?
> completely revamped the classical notions of space and time (On the Electro
> Dynamics of Moving Bodies --- special relativity). His originality was *
> his*,
> and not the result of a philosophy which if anything was Machian.
> His general theory of relativity published in
> 1915 was sui generis. Nobody was even close on this.
> If Marcuse and Pisaturo are original and do important work it is
> to their credit and not to a particular philosphy.
The philosophy alone is not enough. The philosophy, however, is a
powerful tool which makes a thinker that much stronger at what he does.
> Several hundred thousand
> folks are Objectivists and don't make original contributions. Why do you
> suppose the fact the Marcuse is an Objectivist accounts for any of his
> mathematical originality.
Because he is explicitly applying the Objectivist epistemology to his
work. He would tell you flat out that's what he is doing.
> Thousands of mathematicians are not Objectivist
> and they make original important contributions to mathematics. What does
> one have to do with the other?
> It is you who are claiming it is the Objectivist view of the workers you me
> ntion
> is what generates their originality. First you have not shown this. Second
> from what you mention concerning complex number, their work does not
> sound particularly original since the grounding of the reals and the complex
> number systems was done thoroughly and correctly before these chaps were
> even born. By their fruits shall they be known.
The originality would be in their ability to apply the method to the
field in question. There is much original in their work. This is the
kind of work Objectivists need to do in _all_ fields of knowledge.
> Please give citiations and tell us what makes their contribution of greater
> value than that which has gone before.
By giving math a more solid foundation there will be less floundering
around, and more productive work done in the field. This is what I
believe.
> > But, note, Marcus and Pisaturo _are_ doing original work. They
> > _are_
> > making contributions.
> Well and good. What are their contributions? Can you be morespecific. Even a
> short summary would be of use in this discussion.
It's not easy to summarize, but I'll give you the last paragraph and
line of the last article: "Comprehending the principle of the uniform
unit is the key to understanding every method of mathematics. Finding a
uniform unit is the key to applying mathematics to a specific science.
Finding a new kind of uniform unit, or a new way of dealing with uniform
units, is the key to devising a new mathematical method.
To understand mathematics, remember this one principle: the uniform
unit."
They show how this concept is applied to a wide array of mathematical
concepts.
[...]
> I agree Little has an original point of view. I do not see how it differs
> all
> that much from the Bohm-DeBrogle version of QM which also starts
> with waves AND particles this removing the duality. I look forward to
> seeing Little's work backed up by experiment (this is the figure of merit
> in the physical sciences. Does the theory match the facts. That is the
> only thing that counts).
I agree. Btw, did you read Stephen Speicher's paper on this? If not,
I recommend it!
> So far, Little's work is the only solid thing I have seen.
I realize this. I don't expect you to evaluate Pisaturo's and Marcus'
work as good sight unseen.
...John
Robert J. Kolker
John Alway wrote:
> It's not easy to summarize, but I'll give you the last paragraph and
> line of the last article: "Comprehending the principle of the uniform
> unit is the key to understanding every method of mathematics. Finding a
> uniform unit is the key to applying mathematics to a specific science.
> Finding a new kind of uniform unit, or a new way of dealing with uniform
> units, is the key to devising a new mathematical method.
>
> To understand mathematics, remember this one principle: the uniform
> unit."
>
> They show how this concept is applied to a wide array of mathematical
> concepts.
>
Fantastic. Do you know what this astounding principle is called in
thenon-Objectivist world? It is called counting. The basis of all counting
is the enumeration of objects. The basis of measurement is counting
the number of times a unit goes into the quantity to be measured.
Mankind has been counting for 50,000 years (at least) and the ancients
were doing landing measurement from 4000 B.C.E. if not earlier.
This sounds like an elaboration of measurement omission which is hardly
original with Rand.
Bob Kolker
John Alway
>
> John Alway wrote:
>
> > It's not easy to summarize, but I'll give you the last paragrap
> > h and
> > line of the last article: "Comprehending the principle of the uniform
> > unit is the key to understanding every method of mathematics. Finding a
> > uniform unit is the key to applying mathematics to a specific science.
> > Finding a new kind of uniform unit, or a new way of dealing with uniform
> > units, is the key to devising a new mathematical method.
> >
> > To understand mathematics, remember this one principle: the uniform
> > unit."
> >
> > They show how this concept is applied to a wide array of mathem
> > atical
> >
> Fantastic. Do you know what this astounding principle is called in
> thenon-Objectivist world? It is called counting.
Actually, not right. Counting is based on units too. Counting is a
series of units. This series is the first thing he talks about, since
it is the simplest thing next to a unit. Later he talks about groups of
units, which he calls units, and functions, which he calls units. The
whole thing is built up very nicely.
> The basis of all counting
> is the enumeration of objects. The basis of measurement is counting
> the number of times a unit goes into the quantity to be measured.
> Mankind has been counting for 50,000 years (at least) and the ancients
> were doing landing measurement from 4000 B.C.E. if not earlier.
Aside from the fact that more than counting is being done, (e.g.
multiplication and complex numbers are covered) what we're talking about
here is an explicit philosophical foundation, which has not existed.
> This sounds like an elaboration of measurement omission which is hardly
> original with Rand.
Measurement omission is an aspect of it, but it's more than that. It
follows from the question "what facts of reality give rise to x".
...John
Jim Klein
>Actually, not right. Counting is based on units too. Counting is a
>series of units. This series is the first thing he talks about, since
>it is the simplest thing next to a unit. Later he talks about groups
>of units, which he calls units, and functions, which he calls units.
>The whole thing is built up very nicely.
No doubt; it's got you believing that he said something! I admit that
I don't know whether he did or not, but I'm likewise doubtful that
_you_ know whether he did or not either.
Your comment here made me realize what it is about some ARIan-variety
Objectivists that I think is so mistaken. (Well, _one_ of the things
anyway!) There seems to be a great confusion between actually making a
new identification and coming up with a new way to consider an existing
one. This seems odd to me in view of the fact that Objectivism is so
focussed on epistemology; the distinction between the two should be
clear as a bell.
It's reminiscent of the Binswanger thing. I've no doubt that he
lucidly came up with a way to view biological functions as being
teleological; and I can imagine that such a view could be helpful for
various things. But to the degree it's meant to be an identification
of some new fact, it's false. There's no new information in it and to
the degree there's claimed to be, the information is wrong. Simply
put, it's just a different way of looking at the existing facts, which
of course are NOT teleological in any objective way.
And let's not argue about that, since even the _form_ of the thesis
should tip you off. Notice that it required NO new evidence of the
senses; it was able to be produced sitting in a chair. So even if you
believe the hogwash about some sort of teleology "being there," it
should strike you as odd that such a revelation was able to be
discerned with absolutely no external data added to our knowledge.
IMO, even the most ardent supporter of Binswanger's thesis should think
it noteworthy that a new discovery is being offered, without anything
new being discovered.
This example strikes me as similar, though I don't have the specific
theory at hand. Perhaps you could shed some light on this---what NEW
identification did this fellow come up with? What FACT of reality did
he identify, which hadn't been identified before?
Just one or two would suffice, if you've got 'em. Einstein didn't just
revise a way of looking at existing truths; he actually IDENTIFIED
some about which we weren't aware at all. Did this chap do that, or
did he just come up with a terrific way of integrating a certain set of
truths which we already had? I mean...that's admirable and all, but
it's quite different from discovery. And unless I'm mistaken, Bob was
speaking more about discovery than he was about paradigm construction.
Lance earlier asked me what I meant by the difference between modeling
and identification. I think this is close.
jk
DSANDIN
on Sun, Nov 1, 1998 13:38 EST, in <363CA8D6...@icsi.net> :
>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>
>> I agree Little has an original point of view. I do not see how it differs
>> all
>> that much from the Bohm-DeBrogle version of QM which also starts
>> with waves AND particles this removing the duality. I look forward to
>> seeing Little's work backed up by experiment (this is the figure of merit
>> in the physical sciences. Does the theory match the facts. That is the
>> only thing that counts).
>
> I agree. Btw, did you read Stephen Speicher's paper on this? If not,
>I recommend it!
So do I. It's great as an introduction, especially for those who
don't have a good familiarity with a wide range of modern
physics concepts. For those who do, Dr. Little's paper itself is
available at
It's an absolute knockout. (Stephen's is also available there.)
--- Dean
Betsy Speicher
>
>
> John Alway wrote:
>
> > It's not easy to summarize, but I'll give you the last paragrap
> > h and
> > line of the last article: "Comprehending the principle of the uniform
> > unit is the key to understanding every method of mathematics. Finding a
> > uniform unit is the key to applying mathematics to a specific science.
> > Finding a new kind of uniform unit, or a new way of dealing with uniform
> > units, is the key to devising a new mathematical method.
> >
> > To understand mathematics, remember this one principle: the uniform
> > unit."
> >
> > They show how this concept is applied to a wide array of mathem
> > atical
> > concepts.
> >
>
> Fantastic. Do you know what this astounding principle is called in
> thenon-Objectivist world? It is called counting. The basis of all counting
> is the enumeration of objects.
Correct!
And that is what nails mathematics securely down to the real world of the
observable and touchable.
> The basis of measurement is counting
> the number of times a unit goes into the quantity to be measured.
>
> Mankind has been counting for 50,000 years (at least) and the ancients
> were doing landing measurement from 4000 B.C.E. if not earlier.
Mankind had been "doing logic" for as long as they had the cerebral
capacity but it wasn't until Aristotle that the process was identified and
formalized.
> This sounds like an elaboration of measurement omission
ALL concepts are "an elaboration of measurement omission." That was
Rand's point.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com