SOLO Perversion of Objectivism-- Part 2: Why Lindsay Perigo Hates Me

Reginald Firehammer

A Journal for Western Man-- Issue XXVII-- November 15, 2004
In, "SOLO Perversion of Objectivism: Part 1—The SOLO Style," I stated that the real issue with the Perigo version of Objectivism is the rational/volitional nature of man. In Part II, I will begin to examine some of the subtle philosophical mistakes behind the SOLO objective, methods, and style related to that article.

Does Lindsay Perigo Hate Me?

That Lindsay hates me is only my interpretation of what he says, of course. I certainly could be wrong about it, but if what he says does not mean he hates me, one wonders what he might say about someone he did hate. I am not surprised that he hates me, and do not blame him for it. If I believed what he claims to believe, I would not be very fond of me either. He actually has four good reasons for hating me.

  1. Because of the very first thing I ever said to him.
  2. Because of a post with a question.
  3. Because of a post identifying the perversion.
  4. Because his methods have not worked.

Passion Trumps Reason

Almost the very first thing I ever said to Lindsay was that his entire philosophy could be reduced to, "passion trumps reason." I did not know Mr. Perigo very well then, and the vehemence of his reply astounded me. Of course I now know what infuriated him is in those three words I had exactly summarized all his arguments to their exact meaning so perfectly, its fallacious nature was obvious. Everything else he says, all his so-called arguments, everything he says about, "rationalism," and, "sense of life," is an attempt to obfuscate his only real argument, that passion trumps reason.

Two Posts

It is not the two posts themselves that infuriated Lindsay, because they are only examples of our ongoing argument. But these two posts on the same thread are the best examples of what it is in my arguments and method which Lindsay hates. One of these posts asks a question he is unable to answer, the other identifies in detail the nature of his corruption of Objectivism. His response in both cases is typical, vituperative, lies, and name calling, or no response at all.

The first post is Lindsay's and is not to me. This post is another example of Lindsay's style. He frequently says degrading or insulting things about others in posts having nothing to do with the individuals being abused.

J... - you said: "Humans are meant to change nature while acknowledging its laws."

... But you're far too charitable towards the other side here. First, the other side most certainly doesn't have the philosophical acumen you ascribe to it - the idea that the proposition that "either man is volitional or not" means that man has volitional control over *every* aspect of his being is about as dumb as any I've seen anywhere, as is the activity of expending thousands of words elaborating on such a stupid premise. Second, the opposition is vicious and dishonest. In one guise, now thankphully departed from SOLOHQ, it's phascist; in another, which deliberately blurs the distinction between being moderated & being banned, it's Catholic; in another, it's a cheerleader for the Catholic & the fascist. In none of these guises does the opposition remotely resemble Objectivism, or common decency, or the truth.

 

For those unfamiliar with SOLO and recent events there, this post will be a bit of a mystery. The other side being referred to is me. I was, "the other side," in a debate about homosexuality to which I was invited by Mr. Perigo and another principle. (I address what he called the "proposition" in my next post.) Ignoring the accusation of, "vicious and dishonest," the rest of the characterization refers to three individuals.

The one referred to as a, "phascist," is a serious and gentle poster who never uses bad language or insult, and is always careful to make well reasoned arguments. I often strongly disagree with him, and even in the strongest arguments, he was always courteous and reasonable. He had some unusual views, about spelling, for example, and always used "f" where anything was spelled, "ph." Lindsay teased him mercilessly about it, but does not seem to notice his own peculiarity of always using & (for "and") and asterisks to emphasize words instead of Italics.

"...it's Catholic," refers to a poster who, except for one or two initial posts in which he identified himself as a Roman Catholic, never made an argument for or from the Catholic position, and, in fact, had a better grasp of Objectivist principles and made better objectivist arguments than many other Objectivists. Obviously, he did not agree with Perigo's views on homosexuality, promiscuity, or forcing the American-way-of-life down the throats of other people at the point of a gun. Lindsay obviously hated him, not for his views, but because Lindsay could not answer his arguments. Calling him a Catholic was is only answer.

The, "deliberately blurs the distinction between being moderated & being banned," thing refers to Lindsay's way of shutting up the opposition. I know something about this, because, thought at the time it had not happened to me, but it was about to. When a poster becomes particularly troublesome to Perigo he, "puts them under moderation," which means, anything they want to post must first be reviewed by one of Mr. Perigo's lackeys. That means, nothing will be posted if it is a good argument against any of Mr. Perigo's views, but even when something is allowed to be posted, it shows up so long after the issue is being debated, it is unlikely anyone will see it. So, who is going to be interested in posting under those conditions? No one with any self-respect, and Mr. Perigo knows that.

It is a way for Mr. Perigo to effectively ban someone without admitting that is what he is doing. It is this explanation that Lindsay disingenuously calls blurring the distinction. The only distinction is in what Lindsay calls it. It is exactly like those who say, "no one is stopping you from smoking," and then tells you the only place you may smoke is outside in the rain.

The cheerleader refers to me, even though I never made a defense for either of the other two on SOLO. Many others did when they learned what Perigo had done to them, however. (I did post an article for, "the Catholic," on SOLO at his request.) For not joining the condemnation of those other two, my views do not "remotely resemble Objectivism, or common decency, or the truth," but Mr. Perigo's name calling, twisted logic, and condemnation do?

The following is my short response to Lindsay's last post in which I call him on has false accusation, and ask him a simple innocent question. This is the first of my two notorious posts.

Since you, as far as I know, are the only one ever to say, (or have the idea,) "either man is volitional or not" means that man has volitional control over *every* aspect of his being, that would make your idea, if I may quote you, "about as dumb as any I've seen anywhere ...."

Volition does not mean having conscious control of every aspect of one's being; it does not even mean being in control of one's choices, it means, everything a human being does has to be chosen. Most people, rather than being in control of their choices, make their choices based on feelings, whim, and passion, without regard to the reasons for those feelings or the consequences of their choices, but everything they do is still by their own choice.

Linz, are some of things you do not by choice? (You know of course that excludes biological functions, the autonomic nervous system, and reflex, of course; in case you were contemplating some more of your cute rhetoric.)

 

The following is Lindsay's reasoned response to my question, which he quotes.

 

"Linz, are some of things you do not by choice?"

This is precisely why I now view this writer as dishonest. He knows the argument is not about the *actions* of a gay person, but the orientation itself, which, I repeat, is *not* open to choice. A gay person *could* act as Regi would wish - live a life of abstinence or pretend-heterosexuality - & such self-denial or fraud would be entirely consistent with Regi's intrinsicist/mystic view of morality. It would also be a terrible travesty of life, & I don't care to contemplate the vileness of a *sense* of life that would advocate such a thing. I'll leave it to Diabolical to be polite to that entity from now on. I'm through with it.

 

The following is my response to Lindsay's post, and one of the last I ever posted on SOLO. I was about to be, "put under moderation." This is probably the strongest language I ever used on SOLO, because at this point I was getting a little tired of the same old distortions and lies, which even then I was not willing to actually say were lies. Of course I know better now. This is also the second of my two notorious posts.

 

When I pointed out you are the only person anywhere on SOLO ever to say, "either man is volitional or not" means that man has volitional control over *every* aspect of his being," even though you attributed it to the unidentified, "other side," I explained what the "other side" does say is this: everything a human being does is by conscious choice.

I explained that assuming you either misunderstood something I said, or didn't read it correctly. I know there is another possibility, but I will certainly not make that all too obvious accusation. I think you are mistaken, but not dishonest.

I then asked, to be sure I understood what your point was, "Linz, are some of things you do not by choice?"

To that you made the amazing remark: "This is precisely why I now view this writer as dishonest."

You say something which is blatantly untrue about me, and I give you the benefit of the doubt. I ask you a simple question, which implies nothing at all, and you call me dishonest.

Then you say, like God himself, reading my mind and stating with arbitrary finality, "He knows the argument is not about the *actions* of a gay person, but the orientation itself, which, I repeat, is *not* open to choice."

But I know no such thing at all. My whole argument is that a person's, "orientation," or "inclination," to do or be anything (a thief, a nymphomaniac, a pedophile, a homosexual) is irrelevant. Only what one chooses matters. It is only one's actual actions, in thought and deed that has any part of defining who and what an individual is. A person tempted to steal is not a thief unless he yields to the temptation (his orientation) and actually steals.

Then you said, "A gay person *could* act as Regi would wish ...," once again, reading into my mind what is not there, but is certainly in yours, because you wrote it. The only "wish" I have for all men is that they be free to live their lives any way they choose without the interference of any other man. I have never suggested I wish gays would act in any particular way, except in the general sense that I wish all men would, for their own sakes, refrain from self-destructive behavior, without regard to which behavior that would be.

If you can find anywhere, on SOLO, in my book, or anyplace else where I ever said or suggested anyone, ever, should, "live a life of abstinence or pretend-heterosexuality," I will apologize for it and repudiate it here and now. If you cannot show me that, I will be severely tempted to change my mind about that benefit of the doubt I am still extending you.

"... such self-denial or fraud would be entirely consistent with Regi's intrinsicist/mystic view of morality," you said. If you want to cover up a fault, the quickest way to do it is to accuse your opponent of that fault, whether it is true or not. But, of course I know you would not do that, would you?

You certainly aren't calling my insistence that human beings have a specific nature that determines what is good and bad for us, like a specific kind of stomach that precludes poison being a good thing to eat "intrinsicist," are you? You wouldn't be labeling my insistence that one use the best reason of which they are capable when choosing their values and how they choose to live their life "mystic," would you?

What would you call a view that says what a person is, is determined by some mysterious unknown something; that a person is not, as Ayn Rand said, "a being of self-made soul," but a creature whose identity is determined by genes and environmental influences or something else? That would not be intrinsicist would it?

And what do you call the view that says one has knowledge that is not derived objectively by reason, but is, "just there?" You wouldn't call that a priorism? And what do you call the view that says there is knowledge that does not require the mind? You wouldn't call the mysticism? I call the view, that says "the body (the "heart," "electricity," "sexual chemistry" etc.) has reasons the mind knows not of," the grossest of subjectivist mysticism, on the basis of which any outrage may be justified, and apparently is.

Now, all this is based on how I understood what you said, and I confess I may have misunderstood it. It is difficult to understand something so shrill.

Oh yes, please do not worry about, "...to be polite to that entity from now on. I'm through with it." I doubt if I or anyone else will notice any difference.

 

The quote, "the body (the "heart," "electricity," "sexual chemistry" etc.) has reasons the mind knows not of," is from Mr. Perigo's article, 'Romance and Rationalism' Revisited and Revised, which I shall discuss in another article.

Lindsay never answered that last post, for obvious reasons. In fact, Lindsay never provides reasoned answers to any posts. That is not his style. His style is not meant to answer, but to bully and control, to shut people up, or to intimidate them into agreement or silence.

Something Refreshing

The following post was, I think, the very last post on the thread where the ones above appear. I have no idea who the individual is, but it is an example of two things: first, there are good, intelligent, reasonable people who post on SOLO. Posting on SOLO does not imply guilt by association. Secondly, one's methods and style are noticed, and make a difference.

I have enjoyed this particular thread more than any other on this site....

This is why:

Although I disagree with Reginald and his conclusions, I must hand it to him that he is the only one who could consistently and calmly argue his point of view.

To the others, who I will not name, who think that Mere Assertion is an argument, or that your views do not need to be backed up by logical argument - why are you posting on a site dedicated to rationality and logical debate?

If your conclusions are so obvious...shouldn't you be able to say why without reducing yourselves to petty personal attacks and rhetoric?

 

The Final Infuriation

The three things that Lindsay hates about me are the fact that I caught him out so easily, that my arguments cannot be answered, and that I put him on the spot, to provide a reasonable answer which he could not. Of course it was not I that did it, but the truth itself, which I only articulated. Nevertheless, I think Lindsay could have lived with these three offenses, what he could not stand is the one thing that indicates exactly what Mr. Perigo is—Lindsay could not bear the fact he was unable to provoke, manipulate, or intimidate me.

When he called me names, I simply begin using those names for my self; when he falsely accused me, I confessed to much more than he accused me of; when he became hysterical and insulting, I ignored it; if he has tried to intimidate me, I have not noticed (but I suppose he has).

I told Barbara Branden, "Lindsay has played his trump card. I know he is livid because he was unable to provoke me, as he has others, into saying something he can use as justification for banning me (or putting me under "review"). He has, for all intents and purposes, made it clear, if Regi mentions this subject again, that will be justification for shutting me up." I had no intention of mentioning the subject (homosexuality) again, and Barbara knew it.

This was all part of a rather long email discourse with Barbara, who assured me there was no such intention. While she was making those assurances, she had already made the infamous post that would be Lindsay's argument for banning me, all of which I have described in detail in, "My Confession and Apology."

"Rationalism," and Other Labels

It is obvious one of Mr. Perigo's chief methods of debate is to dismiss arguments and those who make them by simply labeling them as, "vicious," "dishonest," or "fascist." One of his favorite labels is "rationalism."

In most of Ayn Rand's works, the word rationalism is used in contrast to irrationalism or subjectivism. There are only one or two references to that philosophical "rationalism" (but more in Peikoff's works). Just as philosophical "realism" has nothing to do with reality, and philosophical "idealism" has nothing to do with ideals, the fallacious philosophical "rationalism" has nothing to do with correct reason.

Philosophical rationalism, has a very specific meaning and refers to a specific philosophical error. That rationalism is any of the the epistemological theories that attribute knowledge to an a priori means and is the opposite of empiricism. Prominent rationalists include Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz.

A priori means derived by logic without observed facts. It is the idea that one can know something without any evidence other than the knowledge itself. It is what people mean by, "I just know it," or, "I feel it is true." This is exactly what Lindsay means by "the body (the "heart," "electricity," "sexual chemistry" etc.) has reasons the mind knows not of," and what the, "Writer in Residence" Barbara Branden intends when she says:

"Regi, how did you discover that you were heterosexual? Was it not because you began to feel certain physical desires, and a sexual attraction to particular girls?? Was it not your emotions that told you that you were heterosexual?"

The idea that one just knows something, like just knowing they are a heterosexual or a homosexual or anything else is, a priorism, and that falls under the general class of philosophical errors called rationalism. It is Lindsay and SOLO who are promoting the very philosophical rationalism Lindsay uses to repudiate others and their arguments.

If Lindsay Perigo and Barbara Branden and other supporters of the SOLO view choose to promote these ideas, which they apparently believe are true, they ought to do so. If they truly believe they are consistent with Objectivism, however, they are wrong, and to claim what they are teaching is Objectivism can easily mislead those who want to know what Objectivism really teaches. Objectivism does not teach the kind of subjectivist a priorism Perigo and company are trying to promote.

Ayn Rand referred to the kinds of argument made on SOLO as, "psychologizing," and described it as "a new form of mysticism ... a substitute for reason, cognition and objectivity, as an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment.... But it is still the same old game: the notion that the wishes, the feelings, the beliefs ... can absolve a man from the responsibility of cognition. [The Objectivist—March 1971, "The Psychology Of Psychologizing."]

Ayn Rand emphasized many times and in many different ways, "Emotions are not tools of cognition; to be guided by whims—by desires whose source, nature and meaning one does not know—is to turn oneself into a blind robot, operated by unknowable demons (by one's stale evasions), a robot knocking its stagnant brains out against the walls of reality which it refuses to see." [No doubt muttering to itself, "but I 'began to feel certain physical desires,'" and "she told me it was OK because, it is 'your emotions that told you.'"] [Rand quote from The Virtue of Selfishness, "The Objectivist Ethics,"]

A priorism, which in this case takes the form of, "subjectivism," is one of the, "unfortunate premises," Ayn Rand referred to when she said, "homosexuality" is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" that are both "immoral" and "disgusting." ["The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture, Boston, 1971].

With the exception of the word "immoral," I intend demonstrate that every one of these accusations are true of the SOLO agenda and "philosophy." It happens to be about homosexuality, because that is their chosen application of their wrong views. I am not interested in the homosexuality, because the same philosophical errors apply to any kind of wrong choices. I am interested in the wrong, "premises," the "errors," the "corruptions," of philosophy, and the consequent "psychological flaws," which are "disgusting" perversions of the truth.

A Word About Morality

There is a reason I intend to exclude the moral question. I originally used the word immoral to describe practices one believes are self-destructive and continues to practice. It is the way Ayn Rand uses that word, I believe, when referring to private and personal practices. The problem is, most people mean something else by immoral. In common usage, the word immoral is a loaded word implying, "condemnation," or, "evil," in some metaphysical sense. In that sense, no practice which harms no one else is "immoral."

I agree with Ayn Rand that homosexual practices are self-destructive. While there is plenty of evidence that those practices are physiologically harmful, it is not that aspect I am referring to. Rather, it is the necessity of holding psychological contradictions that require a kind of mental compartmentalization to prevent the contradictions from being recognized, leading to a more general disintegration of values and personality which I refer to as self-destructive. This kind of self-harm is much more serious than the physiological consequences of homosexuality.

But I really am not interested in addressing the question of homosexuality at all; I am only interested in addressing the more serious philosophical errors, which I will do in earnest in Part 3—The SOLO Sense of Life.

Reginald Firehammer is a filosofer and author of the book: The Hijacking of a Philosophy: Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand's Objectivism. He is the author and host of The Autonomist, an online intellectual journal, and a prominent contributor to the SoloHQ forum, as well as a contributor to The Rational Argumentator. In the future, he intends to produce a comprehensive treatise on ontology, consciousness, and ultimately filosofy itself. Mr. Firehammer can be contacted at regi@usabig.com.

You can discuss this work on The Autonomist's forum at http://usabig.com/wowbbforums/view_topic.php?id=25&forum_id=7.

Give feedback on this work at TRA's forum, which you can access at http://rationalarg.proboards24.com.

Advertise your business or product permanently on TRA for a mere $1 donation to a worthy endeavor to combat human aging. Click here to learn more.

Help bring about the cure for human aging within our lifetimes. Learn how you can help through the Chicago Methuselah Foundation Fund.

Visit The Rational Argumentator's new Online Store.

 

Visit TRA's Yahoo! Group, a means of notification and communication for our subscribers. You can find it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationalargumentator. You can sign up by sending an e-mail to rationalargumentator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Click here to return to the Issue XXVIII index.

Visit TRA's Master Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues of the magazine. Click here.