Michael Stuart Kelly

Air brushed Objectivist publications and materials

Recommended Posts

Air brushed Objectivist publications and materials

The purpose of this thread is to generate a centralized list of where the Brandens are being air brushed out of official Objecivist literature, recordings and other materials, when they were part of the history. Unfortunately, this strange practice is being promoted by those who proclaim themselves to be bastions of reason.

I will be scouring the Internet and books for examples, but I would greatly appreciate posts giving any information any of you may have. I will then transpose the basic info to the list below, so that a single, easily usable list results. The items I find will also be given in separate posts below and some may include details that might clutter the list up. I have included a second list for other people who have been subjected to the same air brush practice. These lists are intended for reference use on the Brandens and Objectivist history.

If you do wish to include information here but do not want to post, or you wish to have your name withheld, please send me an email at:

mikellyusabr@yahoo.com

Please include who the present publisher is, what the source material is and where they are different.

I am not too much interested in bashing the people and organizations who promote the practice of indirectly rewriting history by air brushing, although I do not - and cannot - approve of this by anybody for any reason at all. It is irrational and it fakes reality.

Michael

List of air brushed Objectivist publications and materials - Brandens

The Romantic Manifesto

- New definition by Ayn Rand of psycho-epistemology in “The Psycho-Epistemology of Art.” The original publication giving Nathaniel Branden's definition is in The Objectivist Newsletter (Apr 1965/4:4).

- New definition by Ayn Rand of soul in “Philosophy and Sense of Life.” The original publication giving Nathaniel Branden's definition is in The Objectivist (Feb 1966/5:2).

- In "The Goal of My Writing," an anecdote concerning Nathaniel Branden and a lecture given at NBI by Ayn Rand called The Objectivist Esthetics are omitted from the original essay by deleting whole paragraphs and altering the text in a few places. Three sections of the original essay called "Check Your Premises: The Goal of My Writing" in The Objectivist Newsletter (October 1963/2:10) are altered in this manner.

- In "Art and Moral Treason,"a "case history" concerning Nathaniel Branden was omitted from the original essay at the end (last two paragraphs). The original essay is "Check Your Premises: Art and Moral Treason," The Objectivist Newsletter (March, 1965/4:3).

Voice of Reason

- In the article, "Our Cultural Value-Deprivation," by Ayn Rand, there is a significant quote from Nathaniel Branden about the psychology of pleasure from his article, "The Psychology of Pleasure." The original version of Rand's article published in The Objectivist (April 1966), mentions Nathaniel as the author quoted, but the reprint in Voice of Reason gives it as "An essay from The Virtue of Selfishness."

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

- In the "Forward" to the original version of the article, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," by Ayn Rand, published in The Objectivist (July 1966), there is a quote from Nathaniel Branden's article "The Stolen Concept," mentioning him as author. In the Meridian 1990 Expanded Second Edition, edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff, the quote and reference to him are omitted. (Earlier versions of ITOE still need to be checked.)

The Ayn Rand Reader (anthology of excerpts from Ayn Rand's works)

- In the original essay, "For the New Intellectual," in For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand credits Nathaniel Branden in a footnote with originating the terms, Attila and Witch Doctor to denote archetypes. In The Ayn Rand Reader (1999, Plume), edited by Gary Hull and Leonard Peikoff, an excerpt from this essay is given in the section called "Attila and the Witch Doctor" in "Part Four: Basic Philosophy, 2. Mind and Body." The entire paragraph is given in the excerpt but the footnote giving Ayn Rand's credit to Nathaniel Branden is omitted.

Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A, edited by Robert Mayhew (NAL Trade 2005)

- Nathaniel Branden is not credited with being the author of his article “Counterfeit Individualism” from The Virtue of Selfishness on p. 117. In the Index, Rand is credited. Nathaniel Branden does not appear at all in the Index.

The Fountainhead, "Introduction" to the Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition

- A note of thanks to Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden for having written Who is Ayn Rand? was omitted, but it was included in "Introduction to 'The Fountainhead,'" The Objectivist (March 1968).

Atlas Shrugged

- The dedication "To Franck O'Connor and Nathaniel Branden" in the original 1957 edition and all printings up to the 1968 break changed to "To Franck O'Connor" for all printings thereafter.

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (1997 documentary)

- Nathaniel Branden's involvement in Rand's life was so severely downplayed that it did not reflect historical reality.

- Barbara Branden was omitted.

Our Esthetic Vacuum (Audio CD; 2-CD set; 97 min., with Q&A)

- Barbara Branden's voice erased. This is a recording of a radio broadcast on Columbia University Station WKCR. The 60 minute lecture, “Our Esthetic Vacuum” was broadcast on April, 26 1962. The 60 minute Q&A was most likely broadcast on May 3, 1962. According to the "Objectivist Calendar" in The Objectivist Newsletter, the broadcast was a “Discussion by Prof. [John] Hospers, Ayn Rand and Barbara Branden.” The Q&A session is only approximately 40 minutes long and about 20 minutes are missing, with Barbara Branden's voice erased (and John Hospers's voice being recognizable, but not identified on the packaging).

The Art of Fiction (Audio CD; 23-CD set; 23 hrs., 3 min. of an informal fiction-writing course given in 1958 in the living room of Ayn Rand.)

- The voices of Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden are erased, replaced by a voice-over of a person who did not attend the course, stating: "At this point in the lecture, a student asked Miss Rand the following question..." Also, the original 48 hours of tapes were edited down to 23 hours and 3 minutes.

The Objectivism Research CD-ROM, "The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (published by Oliver Computing, LLC)

- Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

The following articles by Nathaniel Branden were omitted:

"Common Fallacies About Capitalism"

"Alienation"

- The Virtue Of Selfishness

The following articles by Nathaniel Branden were omitted:

"Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice"

"Isn't Everyone Selfish?"

"The Psychology of Pleasure"

"Counterfeit Individualism"

- The Objectivist Newsletter

All works by Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden were omitted.

- The Objectivist

All works and entries by Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden were omitted.

List of air brushed Objectivist publications and materials - other people

The Journals of Ayn Rand

- Albert Jay Nock is omitted. In the The Objectivist Forum (April 1984), an Ayn Rand journal entry dated January 20, 1947 was published and included the name of Albert Jay Nock. In the same journal entry published in The Journals of Ayn Rand, edited by David Harriman (Dutton 1997), on pages 549-50, the reference to Albert Jay Nock disappeared, among other changes.

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (1997 documentary)

- Alan Greenspan, an important member of The Collective, was omitted.

Our Esthetic Vacuum (Audio CD; 2-CD set; 97 min., with Q&A)

- John Hospers not identified. This is a recording of a radio broadcast on Columbia University Station WKCR. The 60 minute lecture, “Our Esthetic Vacuum” was broadcast on April, 26 1962. The 60 minute Q&A was most likely broadcast on May 3, 1962. According to the "Objectivist Calendar" in The Objectivist Newsletter, the broadcast was a “Discussion by Prof. [John] Hospers, Ayn Rand and Barbara Branden.” The Q&A session is only approximately 40 minutes long and about 20 minutes are missing, with John Hospers's voice being recognizable, but not identified on the packaging (and Barbara Branden's voice erased).

The Objectivism Research CD-ROM, "The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" (published by Oliver Computing, LLC)

- Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

The following articles by Alan Greenspan were omitted:

"Antitrust"

"Gold and Economic Freedom"

"The Assault on Integrity"

The article, "The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children" by Robert Hessen was omitted.

- The Objectivist Newsletter

All works and entries by Martin Anderson, Joan Blumenthal, Edith Efron, Alan Greenspan, Beatrice Hessen, Robert Hessen and Joan Meltzer were omitted.

- The Objectivist

All works and entries by John W. Bales (reader), Molly Bartholomew (reader), Allan Blumenthal, Joan Blumenthal, Avis Brick, Roger J. Callahan, Robert Efron, Alan Greenspan, Beatrice Hessen, Robert Hessen, Erika Holzer, Henry Mark Holzer, Phyllis Holzer, Henry Kamm, Susan Ludel, John O. Nelson, George Reisman, Wilfred Schwartz, Kay Nolte Smith, Jeffrey St. John, Mary Ann Sures, George Walsh and Barbara Weiss were omitted.

- The Ayn Rand Letter

All entries by Barbara Weiss were omitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first printed Objectivist definition of psycho-epistemology.

As endorsed by Ayn Rand in “The Psycho-Epistemology of Art,” in The Objectivist Newsletter (Apr 1965/4:4)

(See Nathaniel Branden's article on "Psycho-Epistemology" in the October and November 1964 issues of this NEWSLETTER, where he defines psycho-epistemology as "the study of the mental operations that are possible to and that characterize man's cognitive behavior.")

Interestingly, when she published this same essay in The Romantic Manifesto, she removed Branden’s definition and supplied her own: “(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.)”

The Objectivist definition of soul.

As endorsed by Ayn Rand in “Philosophy and Sense of Life,” in The Objectivist (Feb 1966/5:2)

Nathaniel Branden defines "soul" as "a mind and its basic values."

In like manner, when she published this same essay in The Romantic Manifesto, she removed Branden’s definition and supplied her own: “(By ‘soul’ I mean ‘consciousness.’)”

So she replaced these two definitions (“psycho-epistemology” and “soul”) in the same essays when they were reprinted in The Romantic Manifesto, but she did not make any statement that I know of stating that they are no longer official Objectivism. Also, these definition replacements seem more like synonyms than essential differences.

Note: In my Signet paperback copy of The Romantic Manifesto, it gives the first printing as 1971, which is well after the break, but the changes in definitions might have merely evolved. Still, from what I can see, if this were the case, they would be the only details that did evolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psychology of Pleasure

On psychology of pleasure, I found the following reference by Ayn Rand in "Our Cultural Value-Deprivation," The Objectivist, April 1966:

The form in which man experiences the reality of his values is pleasure. In his essay on "The Psychology of Pleasure," Nathaniel Branden writes: "Pleasure, for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need. Pleasure (in the widest sense of the term) is a metaphysical concomitant of life, the reward and consequence of successful action—just as pain is the insignia of failure, destruction, death .... The state of enjoyment gives [man] a direct experience of his own efficacy, of his competence to deal with the facts of reality, to achieve his values, to live .... As pleasure emotionally entails a sense of efficacy, so pain emotionally entails a sense of impotence. In letting man experience, in his own person, the sense that life is a value and that he is a value, pleasure serves as the emotional fuel of man's existence." (THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER, February 1964. )

When this article appeared in The Voice of Reason, edited by Leonard Peikoff, Rand's original text was altered to read as follows:

The form in which man experiences the reality of his values is pleasure.

[An essay from The Virtue of Selfishness on "The Psychology of Pleasure," states:] "Pleasure, for man, is not a luxury, but a profound psychological need. Pleasure (in the widest sense of the term) is a metaphysical concomitant of life, the reward and consequence of successful action—just as pain is the insignia of failure, destruction, death .... The state of enjoyment gives [man] a direct experience of his own efficacy, of his competence to deal with the facts of reality, to achieve his values, to live .... As pleasure emotionally entails a sense of efficacy, so pain emotionally entails a sense of impotence. In letting man experience, in his own person, the sense that life is a value and that he is a value, pleasure serves as the emotional fuel of man's existence." (THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER, February 1964. )

Stolen Concept

On stolen concept, I found the following reference by Ayn Rand in the "Forward" of "Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology," The Objectivist (July 1966):

These are the reasons why I chose to introduce you to Objectivist epistemology by presenting my theory of concepts. I entitle this series an "Introduction," because the theory is presented outside of its full context. For instance, I do not include here a discussion of the validity of man's senses—since the arguments of those who attack the senses are merely variants of the fallacy of the "stolen concept."' (That fallacy consists of "the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends." See "The Stolen Concept" by Nathaniel Branden, THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER, January 1963.)

In the Meridian 1990 Expanded Second Edition, edited by Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff, the same paragraph reads as follows:

These are the reasons why I chose to introduce you to Objectivist epistemology by presenting my theory of concepts. I entitle this work an "Introduction," because the theory is presented outside of its full context. For instance, I do not include here a discussion of the validity of man's senses—since the arguments of those who attack the senses are merely variants of the fallacy of the "stolen concept."

Note from Michael: This 1990 version of ITOE is the only one I have at present, but I will go on the presumption that this paragraph was given the same way in the 1979 First Mentor Printing. Also, in the early 70's, before I went to Brazil, I used to own a paperback printing of ITOE that was thin, but wider and taller than a typical paperback, with a cover that had a green stripe running down it. I don't know the date and lost that book in Brazil, but I seem to remember that it did not include the Peikoff essay, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy." The reason I remember this so vividly is because I remember the excitement of seeing the new essay in the Mentor printing on a vacation trip back to the USA years ago, which is the reason I bought it.

Does anybody else remember this original printing? I would be interested to see if it came out before the break and if the paragraph mentioning Nathaniel Branden was altered there also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone brought this to attention on another site, but if you look in the index to the new book Ayn Rand Answers, you'll see "Counterfeit Individualism" credited to Rand, rather than appropriately NB. Mistake, or poor knowledge by the editor? I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Goal of My Writing

There were changes to three sections in the essay, The Goal of My Writing, by Ayn Rand.

1. In The Objectivist Newsletter (October 1963/2:10), "Check Your Premises: The Goal of My Writing" Rand wrote:

I have been asked to discuss the motive or purpose of my writing. It is a somewhat difficult assignment, because I know that it is a very complex subject—yet, to me, it feels like a simple, self-evident primary, obvious in every line I have ever written.

Knowing that the self-evident is usually the hardest to communicate, I shall begin by telling you an incident which may help to make it clearer.

Shortly after I met Nathaniel Branden, he and I had a telephone conversation about literature. He was then nineteen years old, and he told me that two novels had played an important role in his intellectual development: one was The Fountainhead, which he had read at the age of fourteen, the other was Romain Roland's Jean Christophe, which he had read at sixteen. In a very generalized way, these two novels may be said to deal with the same subject: the struggle of a creative genius against an inimical society. Mr. Branden said that both novels were of great value to him, that both had helped him to grasp and objectify certain issues—but that The Fountainhead had a deeper personal importance to him and he was struggling to identify all the reasons of the difference of his reaction.

I asked him: "Tell me, would you want to meet Jean Christophe in real life?"

He understood me at once. I heard a kind of small gasp of delighted astonishment over the telephone wire-and he answered: "No. No, not particularly. But I would want to meet Howard Roark."

This, I told him, was the primary meaning of literature to me—both in what I write and in what I like to read.

This is the motive and purpose of my writing: the projection of an ideal man. The portrayal of a moral ideal, as my ultimate literary goal, as an end in itself—to which any didactic, intellectual or philosophical values contained in a novel are only the means.

Let me stress this: my purpose is not the philosophical enlightenment of my readers, it is not the beneficial influence which my novels may have on people, it is not the fact that Howard Roark did help Mr. Branden's intellectual development. All these matters are important, but they are secondary considerations, they are merely consequences and effects, not first causes or prime movers—although a reader like Nathaniel Branden is as great a reward as a novelist could ever hope to find. My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark (or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Francisco d'Anconia) as an end in himself—not as a means to any further end. Which, incidentally, is the greatest value I could ever offer a reader.

In "The Goal of My Writing" in The Romantic Manifesto, entire paragraphs have been omitted and only two are left, all references to Nathaniel Branden have been eliminated and it reads as follows:

The motive and purpose of my writing is the projection of an ideal man. The portrayal of a moral ideal, as my ultimate literary goal, as an end in itself—to which any didactic, intellectual or philosophical values contained in a novel are only the means.

Let me stress this: my purpose is not the philosophical enlightenment of my readers, it is not the beneficial influence which my novels may have on people, it is not the fact that my novels may help a reader’s intellectual development. All these matters are important, but they are secondary considerations, they are merely consequences and effects, not first causes or prime movers. My purpose, first cause and prime mover is the portrayal of Howard Roark (or John Galt or Hank Rearden or Francisco d'Anconia) as an end in himself—not as a means to any further end. Which, incidentally, is the greatest value I could ever offer a reader.

2. Later, in The Objectivist Newsletter (October 1963/2:10), "Check Your Premises: The Goal of My Writing" Rand wrote:

It is not my purpose today to discuss the Objectivist theory of esthetics. But in order to indicate my frame-of-reference, let me give you the Objectivist definition of art—and of literature as one of its branches. Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical values. By "metaphysical" values I mean those values which reflect an artist's fundamental view of the nature of man and the nature of reality, of the universe in which he lives and acts; or, to put it another way: an artist's fundamental view of man's relationship to existence.

For a brief presentation of my theory of art, I will refer you to the introduction I wrote for the new translation of Victor Hugo's novel Ninety-Three, published by Bantam Books. For a fuller presentation and validation of my theory, I will refer you to the lecture on The Objectivist Esthetics which I give at the Nathaniel Branden Institute.

For the purposes of today's discussion, I will ask you to bear in mind only two characteristics of art (and of literature), which almost all theories of esthetics recognize to be true: the fact that art is selective and the fact that an art work, as distinguished from a utilitarian object, serves no practical purpose other than that of contemplation.

I must mention, as an aside, that the Objectivist esthetics can demonstrate that such contemplation does have a purpose and does serve a need of man—only it is not a physical need of his existence, it is a profound need of his consciousness. But this is not the subject—though it is the deeper background—of today's discussion.

In the corresponding section of "The Goal of My Writing" in The Romantic Manifesto, all four paragraphs have been omitted, thus all reference to her lecture at NBI, The Objectivist Esthetics, has been eliminated.

3. Later, in The Objectivist Newsletter (October 1963/2:10), "Check Your Premises: The Goal of My Writing" Rand wrote:

I quote from my lecture on The Objectivist Esthetics: "Since man's ambition is unlimited, since his pursuit and achievement of values is a life-long process—and the higher the values, the harder the struggle—man needs a moment, an hour or some period of time in which he can experience the sense of his completed task, the sense of living in a universe where his values have been successfully achieved. It is like a moment of rest, a moment to gain fuel to move farther. Art gives him that fuel." Art gives him the experience of seeing the full, immediate, concrete reality of his distant goals.

In the corresponding section of "The Goal of My Writing" in The Romantic Manifesto, the reference to her lecture, The Objectivist Esthetics, has been eliminated, and it reads as follows:

Since man's ambition is unlimited, since his pursuit and achievement of values is a life-long process—and the higher the values, the harder the struggle—man needs a moment, an hour or some period of time in which he can experience the sense of his completed task, the sense of living in a universe where his values have been successfully achieved. It is like a moment of rest, a moment to gain fuel to move farther. Art gives him that fuel. Art gives him the experience of seeing the full, immediate, concrete reality of his distant goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (1997 documentary)

Nathaniel Branden's involvement in Rand's life was so severely downplayed that it did not reflect historical reality.

Barbara Branden was omitted.

Alan Greenspan, an important member of The Collective, was omitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ayn Rand Reader

In For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand, there is the following paragraph and footnote in the title essay, "For the New Intellectual," crediting Nathaniel Branden with originating the terms, Attila and Witch Doctor to denote archetypes.

These two figures—the man of faith and the man of force—are philosophical archetypes, psychological symbols and historical reality. As philosophical archetypes, they embody two variants of a certain view of man and of existence. As psychological symbols, they represent the basic motivation of a great many men who exist in any era, culture or society. As historical reality, they are the actual rulers of most of mankind's societies, who rise to power whenever men abandon reason.*

* I am indebted to Nathaniel Branden for many valuable observations on this subject and for his eloquent designation of the two archetypes, which I shall use hereafter: Attila and the Witch Doctor.

In an anthology of excerpts from Ayn Rand's works, The Ayn Rand Reader, (1999, Plume) edited by Gary Hull and Leonard Peikoff, an excerpt from this essay is given in the section called "Attila and the Witch Doctor" in "Part Four: Basic Philosophy, 2. Mind and Body." The entire paragraph is given in the excerpt but the footnote giving Ayn Rand's credit to Nathaniel Branden is omitted.

In "Editor's Preface" by Gary Hull, he stated:

I have, of course, made no changes in AR's own words.

For a mention of this, see the customer review on Amazon by Steve Jackson (June 13, 2000)

For a discussion of this by Barbara Branden and others (SoloHQ, October 2004), see here.

This discrepancy has been commented in many places on the Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all just incredible. I am practically speechless with indignation. :-#

And where is that lecture "The Objectivist Esthetics," anyway??

Mayhew...Jesus Christ, man...

REB

================================================

SPECIAL EDIT, November 8, 2008: I figure that this is the appropriate place

for a post of mine that MSK has just deleted from a thread I began on "Time to

Shrug?" For further background details, consult that thread in the Living Room.

I hope readers appreciate the irony of my putting this material here, in response

to MSK's tossing me into the "memory hole"--and of MSK's doing the very thing

he began ~this~ thread to combat. Hypocrite! :angry:

================================================

QUOTE(Michael Stuart Kelly @ Nov 7 2008, 11:25 AM)

QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 7 2008, 01:20 PM)

As several people have in vain tried to explain to you, pointing out racist reasoning in a particular argument does not imply that you accuse the person who makes that statement is a racist. But either that is too difficult for you or you really know better (which would be worse).END QUOTE OF DRAGONFLY

Dragonfly,

It's worse. Robert Bidinotto does not use racist reasoning and is not a racist.

I've had enough.

The thread is closed.

Michael END QUOTE OF MICHAEL STUART KELLY

Oh, really?

I guess this means that non-Objectivists are not capable of making an Objectivist statement from time to time, that non-individualists are not capable of using individualist reasoning once in a while, that theists are not capable of uttering atheistic sentiments occasionally -- even if inadvertently or by mistake or under stress.

On the other hand, if a person makes a thread-closing statement even ~once~, apparently (by Michael's ultra-touchy, defensive "logic") that means you are a thread-closer.

Welcome to the Brave New World of MSK-ism. George Orwell would be proud!

REB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Journals of Ayn Rand

In the The Objectivist Forum (April 1984), an Ayn Rand journal entry dated January 20, 1947 was published as follows, giving the name of Albert Jay Nock:

An important point to stress: blast the fool idea that material production is some sort of low activity, the result of some base "materialistic" impulse -- as opposed to the "spiritual realm" (whatever they think that is) which consists of some sort of vague, passive contemplation of something or other (the Albert Jay Nock idea). Show that material production is the result of and comes from the highest and noblest aspect of man, from his creative mind, from his independent rational judgment -- which is his highest attribute and the sole base of his whole morality.

To exercise one's own independent rational judgment is the whole essence of man's morality, his highest action, his sole moral duty and commandment that embraces all his "good" and all his virtues.

In the book, The Journals of Ayn Rand, edited by David Harriman (Dutton 1997), on pages 549-50, this same entry (January 20, 1947) is published as follows without reference to Albert Jay Nock:

An important point to stress: blast the fool idea that material production is some sort of low activity, the result of a base "materialistic" impulse -- as opposed to the "spiritual realm" (whatever they think that is), which consists of some sort of vague, passive contemplation of something or other. Show that material production is the result of and comes from the highest and noblest aspect of man, from his creative mind, from his independent rational judgement -- which is his highest attribute and the sole base of his morality.

To exercise one's own independent rational judgment is the essence of man's morality, his highest action, his sole moral commandment that embraces all his virtues.

There are other important discrepancies. For a detailed examination, see the essay, "Bowdlerizing Ayn Rand" by Chris Matthew Sciabarra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following is an edited version of some of the footnotes from my 2002 JARS essay, a portion of which I just posted over in the Aesthetics folder, along with a link to where the full version is posted, for those interested. Please feel free to post this material elsewhere on the Internet. It deserves a wide audience, as yet more proof that the ARI/Valliant crowd is more interested in destroying truth and obliterating facts than they are with what they call "justice." REB

==============================================

Apparently sometime early in 1960, as noted in a letter to John Hospers dated 17 April of that year, Rand (1995, 503) made a series of four radio broadcasts, possibly on Columbia University Station WKCR. She referred to having earlier kept a promise by sending Hospers copies of the scripts of those talks. In a subsequent letter to Hospers, dated 29 August 1960, she indicated that the third talk was entitled “The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age” (507). She urged him to read it when he had time, for it “presents (also much too briefly) the essence of my theory of art, and will serve as my answer, if we disagree.” It is unlikely that this talk occurred much later than 1 April 1960, and there are no known extant copies of this radio script, which is the earliest known version of her esthetic vacuum talk.

A second and longer series of radio shows was broadcast on WKCR in early 1962. The overall format of the twelve-week series of radio programs was described in the “Objectivist Calendar” (Rand 1962–65a) as follows: “On alternate weeks, Miss Rand will give one of the lectures she has delivered at various universities. On the other six programs, Professor John Hospers of the Philosophy Department of Brooklyn College will discuss Objectivism and the lecture of the preceding week, with Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden.”

Rand’s esthetic vacuum talk was the ninth program of the series and was broadcast on 26 April 1962 with the title “Our Esthetic Vacuum.” What was surely the same talk was delivered the previous day at Boston University and listed (Rand 1962–65b) as “The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age.” Both talks were based, probably with little or no revision, upon her 1961 address to the Cultural Arts Festival at the University of Michigan.

The Ayn Rand Bookstore also markets a companion tape (AR62C) labeled and referred to in their catalog as “The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age, Q&A,” but referred to on the tape as “Our Esthetic Vacuum.” All the evidence suggests that it is a tape of the radio broadcast from 3 May 1962, referred to in the “Objectivist Calendar“ (Rand 1962–65a) as “Discussion by Prof. [John] Hospers, Ayn Rand and Barbara Branden.”

It is worth noting that, although the radio programs were scheduled to run an hour in length (Tape AR25C, being 60 minutes in length, conforms to that plan), the Q&A tape is curiously shorter by a significant amount, being only 40 minutes long. Although Hospers’ name is not listed on the tape’s container or label, or mentioned on the tape itself, his voice is unmistakable, and he asks a number of questions to which Rand responds. Barbara Branden’s voice, however, is nowhere in evidence on the tape.

The most plausible motive for the deletion of fully one-third of the Q&A broadcast would seem to be the consignment of Hospers and Branden, as punishment for their offenses against Rand, respectively, to anonymity (unnamed moderator status) and oblivion—or, in Objectivist terms, to non-Identity and non-Existence. A similar practice is employed in the edited tapes of Rand’s “Lectures on Fiction-Writing”: any time that Barbara Branden or Nathaniel Branden asks a question or reads an excerpt from a book, their voices are replaced by a voice-over speaker.

A related syndrome is the reprehensible practice of certain editors of Rand’s previously unpublished materials who have selectively omitted and/or rewritten her original words (see, for example, The Art of Fiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, by Ayn Rand, in which editor Tore Boeckmann omits a great deal of material that later appeared in The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Romantic Manifesto). The result is that scholars and new readers alike are deprived of the opportunity of seeing Rand’s earliest organized thoughts on the subject of aesthetics.

An expensive twenty-one-tape set of the 1958 fiction lectures (edited down to 23 hours from about 48 hours of “raw tapes”) is still available for purchase through the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Scholars seeking a more comprehensive view of the development of Rand’s aesthetics must continue to make use of the oral tradition—even if it too is edited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Art of Fiction (lecture course)

Informal fiction-writing course given in 1958 in the living room of Ayn Rand.

The product now being sold: The Art of Fiction

Audio CD; 23-CD set; 23 hrs., 3 min.

The voices of Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden are erased, replaced by a voice-over of a person who did not attend the course, stating: "At this point in the lecture, a student asked Miss Rand the following question..." Also, the original 48 hours of tapes were edited down to 23 hours and 3 minutes in the product.

For further discussion, see the following essay by Chris Matthew Sciabarra: "Objectivism and Academe: The Progress, The Politics, and The Promise." The quote below is from this essay.

In some instances, even the original sources have been altered. The Art of Fiction, for example, is based on Rand's lectures on fiction-writing, but the lectures that are selling at Second Renaissance Books have been edited down from 48 to 23 hours, as Russ LaValle has pointed out. Unfortunately, even the audio lectures themselves have been edited. And some of those edits are curious, to say the least. For instance, in attendance at Rand?s 1958 course were Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden. Anytime either of these individuals speaks, a narrator interrupts the tape to tell us that "at this point in the lecture, a [nameless] student asked Miss Rand the following question . . ." Such air-brushing of reality is never completely successful, because those of us who know Barbara?s or Nathaniel?s cough or laugh can detect them in the background.

For more discussion, see Russell Lavalle's review of the condensed book version of "The Art of Fiction" edited by Tore Boeckmann. His review is called “The Author as Craftsman.” In it, he mentions the existence of a set of notes taken from the raw tapes, as given in the quote below.

Quite luckily, therefore, I was able to obtain access to a 234-page, typed manuscript of highly detailed "notes" drafted from the original raw tapes and compiled for distributing to the participants of the now famous lecture course.

In posts on this thread and in the OL Aesthetics section (which originally appeared in footnotes to his article entitled "A Neglected Source for Rand's Aesthetics," Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, downloadable here), Roger Bissell stated the following:

A similar practice is employed in the edited tapes of Rand’s “Lectures on Fiction-Writing”: any time that Barbara Branden or Nathaniel Branden asks a question or reads an excerpt from a book, their voices are replaced by a voice-over speaker.

A related syndrome is the reprehensible practice of certain editors of Rand’s previously unpublished materials who have selectively omitted and/or rewritten her original words (see, for example, The Art of Fiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, by Ayn Rand, in which editor Tore Boeckmann omits a great deal of material that later appeared in The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Romantic Manifesto). The result is that scholars and new readers alike are deprived of the opportunity of seeing Rand’s earliest organized thoughts on the subject of aesthetics.

An expensive twenty-one-tape set of the 1958 fiction lectures (edited down to 23 hours from about 48 hours of “raw tapes”) is still available for purchase through the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Scholars seeking a more comprehensive view of the development of Rand’s aesthetics must continue to make use of the oral tradition—even if it too is edited.

In light of the air brushing out of the voices of Nathaniel and Barbara and replacement by the voice-over of a person who did not attend the course on the 23 hour audio version, I cannot resist the following ironic quote by Leonard Peikoff from the "Forward" to the condensed book version of "The Art of Fiction" edited by Tore Boeckmann:

You too can now experience the joys of attending a course in AR's living room. You cannot ask her questions, as I could. But you can soak up her answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A

In Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A, edited by Robert Mayhew (NAL Trade 2005), Nathaniel Branden is not credited with being the author of his article “Counterfeit Individualism” from The Virtue of Selfishness. In the Index, Rand is credited. Nathaniel Branden does not appear at all in the Index.

Here is the quote from p. 117:

You say the predominant trend of the nineteenth-century intellectuals was collectivist and statist. But didn’t Nietzsche advocate individualism? What’s your estimate of him?

It’s a low estimate, philosophically. I disagree with him emphatically on all fundamentals. Judge a philosopher by the fundamentals of his philosophy – namely, his metaphysics and epistemology. Nietzsche was a subjectivist and irrationalist. Existentialism claims him as an ancestor, with a great deal of justice. Nietzsche believed that although reason is valuable, it is secondary; man’s basic tool of guidance is instinct or blood. Now there is no greater contradiction than a subjectivist calling himself an individualist. An individualist is essentially a man who thinks independently. A subjectivist is a man who does not care to think – who wants to be guided by feelings and “instincts.” To survive, such a man must be a parasite on the thinking of others. An “individualist parasite” is a contradiction in terms. (See the article “Counterfeit Individualism” in The Virtue of Selfishness.) Incidentally, this is why subjectivists could not stem the tide of collectivism…

Here is how the work appears in the Index:

"Counterfeit Individualism" (Rand) 117

Nathaniel Branden is not listed in the Index, which jumps from "Bond, James" to "Breaking the Sound Barrier."

I am indebted to Peter Reidy for pointing this out on another forum on January 24, 2006. To see his post, go here, then jump to page 3 and scroll about halfway down. The post name is "Just for the record" and Peter is identified as simply "Reidy."

Also, thanks to Kat for some extra research on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Art and Moral Treason

A "case history" concerning Nathaniel Branden was omitted at the end (last two paragraphs) of "Art and Moral Treason" in The Romantic Manifesto.

In "Check Your Premises: Art and Moral Treason," The Objectivist Newsletter (March, 1965/4:3), the essay ends as follows:

In conclusion, let me give you a different kind of case history. It is the story of a man who withstood the tortures of childhood and made his own way to the discovery of moral abstractions. At the age of seven, his ideal was The Lone Ranger. At the age of nine, it was Superman. At the age of twelve, it was The Scarlet Pimpernel. Then he asked himself a crucial question; he realized that he had no desire to save French aristocrats from the guillotine and that there were no guillotines around, and he asked himself: how does one apply the things he admired in The Scarlet Pimpernel to one's own life and how does one practice them in the modern world? He found the answer two years later. At the age of fourteen, he read The Fountainhead.

His name is Nathaniel Branden.

Also, a "case history" concerning “Mr. Y” was omitted, as was another sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why everyone is so suprised about this, it is de rigueur procedure in such situations. Behaviorially, it is a normal response.

Look: when cornered, there are only two responses. Flight, or fight.

What you are talking about, Michael, is flight. The pain was so much that it produced hardcore denial, to the point of revisionism. Or, you could call it soft aggression, I suppose.

The nature of Objectivism (namely, being a closed system) is such that dissociation is surely going to occur. And it is going to bring what dissociation brings, which is pathology.

Or, you could look at it in a cruder light, the cult of personality light.

Meaning, all there is to hold on to is the memory of a dead leader. And, out of mis-shot compunction, people will eradicate things to put their world view back into focus.

It is ironic (and I believe I am using the term "irony" correctly here, or at least making it a term of grace) that those who quietly do this (thinking no one will be as facile as they to notice their actions) are using the same big gun that they accuse post-modernists of: creating your own reality.

What you are doing is bringing the facts to the forefront. I will remain unplussed if their is no answer in return; why would I expect anything less?

I think it might have been Chris Sciabarra (who has taken an exquisite amount of dirty streetfighter hits from within Objectivism that... No, let me rephrase that, a streetfighter at least acts overtly, as he doesn't have the advantage of the kind of tacit attack that can be done in the intellectual domains) who was talking about how (Nietzsche?) the first generation of students of a philosopher need be forgiven. True that, and no harm, no foul, I suppose, other than the fouls that these first generation ones perform upon themselves.

De rigueur (trace it, it means "when to wear a silk hat") will be the following process, if there are any who are noble enough: you will have "apologists".

Personally, I doubt it will even go to that, the dissociation is so deep.

Now, all that being said, I think that generally, yes, people who call themselves Objectivists (or students of the writing of Ayn Rand) are pretty much decent people. And, pretty much a cut above the norm, because they are thinkers. Are they true freethinkers? Probably, with the very painful exception of how they deal with other freethinkers; this to be something that is very cumbersome and difficult for them. If I had to say anything to that, it would involve the idea of using "judging."

Maybe it is a temporal problem; that by the nature of looking into the past (the history of the movement, and its founder), they lose awareness. That they look into a snapshot of the past, and that is not now. I would like to know what Barbara thinks about that whole thing, because she seems to have survived immune to that difficulty. I understand the fondness of looking back, but fondness is not a remedy, it is only a certain kind of feeling.

Respectfully Submitted,

rde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Introduction to the Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition of The Fountainhead

A note of thanks to Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden for having written Who is Ayn Rand? was omitted from the "Introduction" to The Fountainhead (Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition), but was included in "Introduction To 'The Fountainhead,'" The Objectivist (March 1968). The paragraph that was eliminated is given below:

I will not retell here the story of the publication of The Fountainhead. I will refer those who are interested to the biographical essay by Barbara Branden in Nathaniel Branden's Who Is Ayn Rand? I shall merely take this opportunity to say "Thank you" to the two authors of that book.

(Interestingly enough, Rand also eliminated two paragraphs talking about Frank O'Connor's painting, Man Also Rises.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Objectivism Research CD-ROM, The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (published by Oliver Computing, LLC)

Brandens omitted

- Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

The following articles by Nathaniel Branden were omitted:

"Common Fallacies About Capitalism"

"Alienation"

- The Virtue Of Selfishness

The following articles by Nathaniel Branden were omitted:

"Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice"

"Isn't Everyone Selfish?"

"The Psychology of Pleasure"

"Counterfeit Individualism"

- The Objectivist Newsletter

All works by Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden were omitted.

- The Objectivist

All works and entries by Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden were omitted.

Others omitted

- Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

The following articles by Alan Greenspan were omitted:

"Antitrust"

"Gold and Economic Freedom"

"The Assault on Integrity"

The article, "The Effects of the Industrial Revolution on Women and Children" by Robert Hessen was omitted.

- The Objectivist Newsletter

All works and entries by Martin Anderson, Joan Blumenthal, Edith Efron, Alan Greenspan, Beatrice Hessen, Robert Hessen and Joan Meltzer were omitted. (Leonard Peikoff’s contributions, however, were included.)

- The Objectivist

All works and entries by John W. Bales (reader), Molly Bartholomew (reader), Allan Blumenthal, Joan Blumenthal, Avis Brick, Roger J. Callahan, Robert Efron, Alan Greenspan, Beatrice Hessen, Robert Hessen, Erika Holzer, Henry Mark Holzer, Phyllis Holzer, Henry Kamm, Susan Ludel, John O. Nelson, George Reisman, Wilfred Schwartz, Kay Nolte Smith, Jeffrey St. John, Mary Ann Sures, George Walsh and Barbara Weiss were omitted. (Leonard Peikoff’s contributions, however, were included, as is one by Frank O'Connor – as told to Ayn Rand.)

- The Ayn Rand Letter

All entries by Barbara Weiss were omitted. (Leonard Peikoff’s contributions, however, are included.)

Note: The following phrase:

“[Note: Only articles by Ayn Rand are included on this CDROM.]”

is from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and other places on the CD-ROM, however, articles and two whole books by Leonard Peikoff are included on the CD-ROM, as well as editor prefaces by Harry Binswanger, David Harriman, Michael S. Berliner, Tore Boeckmann and Robert Mayhew, and an Introduction by Peter Schwartz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragonfly:

I don't know why I wasn't typing that right yesterday. Some kind of glitch... :)

rde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being a legal professional, I confess utter ignorance when it comes to copyright laws (outside of journalism).

If the Brandens' and others' works are excised in such a manner, what is the status of their intellectual property? Can they republish elsewhere due to the hostility of the current rights holder(s)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

[works missing from the CD-ROM]

- The Objectivism Research CD-ROM, "The Philosophy of Ayn Rand"  

The Objectivist Newsletter  

All works by Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden were omitted.  

- The Objectivist  

All works and entries by Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden were omitted.

[....]

- The Objectivist Newsletter  

All works and entries by Martin Anderson, Joan Blumenthal, Edith Efron, Alan Greenspan, Beatrice Hessen, Robert Hessen and Joan Meltzer were omitted.  

- The Objectivist  

All works and entries by John W. Bales (reader), Molly Bartholomew (reader), Allan Blumenthal, Joan Blumenthal, Avis Brick, Roger J. Callahan, Robert Efron, Alan Greenspan, Beatrice Hessen, Robert Hessen, Erika Holzer, Henry Mark Holzer, Phyllis Holzer, Henry Kamm, Susan Ludel, John O. Nelson, George Reisman, Wilfred Schwartz, Kay Nolte Smith, Jeffrey St. John, Mary Ann Sures, George Walsh and Barbara Weiss were omitted.

Today is the first time I've looked at this thread. I'm appalled upon reading that only AR's works from The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist were included on the research CD-ROM. Without the "full context" of the complete publications, a person who wasn't there then would be at a loss to acquire a proper sense of what it was like then, as the ideas and the Objectivist culture were developed in process, month by month, with new articles appearing -- or to acquire a sense of the extent to which especially Nathaniel's articles were crucial to the world view in formation.

Are the original, uncut magazines available in hardcover anywhere, does anyone here know?

Ellen

___

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Ellen, The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist are available in bound hardcover editions from The Ayn Rand Book Store for approximately $40 and $55, respectively. There is also a deal for the combined periodicals including The Ayn Rand Letter for about $154. There is also shipping and handling, of course.

Shoot me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that these are the original, uncut publications. Actually, shoot ARI instead, heh-heh.

REB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger,

Kat and I just got them recently (and the AR Letter). They are exact black and white reprints and are complete, notices and all.

I know the AR Letter is because I received it when I was in college. The only thing is that it is in black and white, while the original was black text on light brown paper with some green details.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger:

Yes, Ellen, The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist are available in bound hardcover editions from The Ayn Rand Book Store for approximately $40 and $55, respectively.

I'm reassured to learn that those can still be obtained. And the price seems reasonable -- for those.

There is also a deal for the combined periodicals including The Ayn Rand Letter for about $154. There is also shipping and handling, of course.

But why they'd add about $60 (adding up the prices minus shipping and handling) for the AR Letters? An uncharitable, suspicious hypothesis: to deter all but the committed from buying those? IMO, mostly the Letters don't present her in a flattering light, as, mostly (though not entirely), they exhibit her moralizing tendencies without the accompanying substance of the earlier articles. (I started to find The Ayn Rand Letter embarrassing as it progressed and felt glad when she stopped publishing it, though sadden by her waning powers.)

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote, re the about $60 being charged for The Ayn Rand Letter:

An uncharitable, suspicious hypothesis: to deter all but the committed from buying those?

That was flippant. Being serious, I think that the more likely possibility is that they don't realize how bad a lot of those Letters are and they're charging what I consider an excessive price because they expect they can get it from her admirers - i.e., that they're engaged in shrewd pricing.

Ellen

___

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the case that everyone in this long list of missing people has been "officially" riden out of town? Or is it that there is simply great fear that some of them are no longer under ARI control and therefore might at some time in the future say something ARI would not like?

It must be terrifying to have so much to worry about.

I think I had better get all my copies of The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist under lock and key. A controlled heat and humidity environment would be a good investment in preserving our history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now