She shows a great respect for reality, self-ownership or individualism, freedom of the intelligent mind (art and science). But she doesn't seem to think those qualities are entirely compatible with one of society's most sacred cows: sanity. That in fact one has to evade intelligent thoughts to at least be categorized as sane, hence the Human Evasion.
On the face of it, there is something rather strange about human psychology.
Human beings live in a state of mind called 'sanity' on a small planet in space. They are not quite sure whether the space around them is infinite or not (either way it is unthinkable). If they think about time, they find it inconceivable that it had a beginning. It is also inconceivable that it did not have a beginning. Thoughts of this kind are not disturbing to 'sanity', which is obviously a remarkable phenomenon and deserving more recognition.
buy it at http://www.celiagree...blications.html
Ayn Rand on the other hand thinks that one has to be more conscious of one's own thinking, but only tangentially to be sane, rather to be happy.
I happen to agree with both statements which leads to an alarming but interesting conclusion.
So what do you think?