Objectivism's Plague: Questions

[C. Jordan]

I have thought further about the issue. Keeping in mind, I'm something of an outsider to the controversy. I know only what I've seen.

Many years ago, I read Ayn Rand's interview in Playboy magazine. It was a highpoint in my intellectual life: a debate between two knowledgeable people. Alvin Toffler asked the right questions, and Ayn Rand gave the right answers — with one exception.

[The following is a paraphrase; I'm sure someone here can provide the exact quotation.]

Toffler: Could Objectivism become a dogma?

Rand: If practiced correctly, Objectivism requires one to think through one's premises; and therefore, no.

Rand's response missed the fact that Christianity is the religion of love, which does not prevent people from behaving barbarically in the name of Christ. Islam is the religion of justice, which has not prevented people from behaving barbarically in the name of Allah. Buddhism is a pacifist philosophy; that did not prevent a Buddhist monk named Zhu Yuanzhang from becoming a warlord. (Zhu is better known as the Hongwu Emperor, founder of the Ming Dynasty.)

Barbara Branden has written about a young Ayn Rand's discovery of the importance of consistency, and that "her proudest boast about the philosophical system she would later devise was that if one accepted any part of it, consistency required that one accept the total of it."

This has not prevented people from treating Rand's works as though they were divine Scripture, not to be challenged. This despite the proud statement of Dagny Taggart that she never put anything above her first-hand perception, and her individual reasoning.

It could be argued that one should not denounce someone with wrong ideas, particularly if that someone is not open to criticism. Instead, one should let them follow their wrong ideas, and accept the consequences. This is how Howard Roark behaved, with respect to Peter Keating. This is contained in the statement of Hugh Akston, as to why he withdrew his mind from society at large, and why he would no longer argue with someone who said that philosophy is an explanation on why there is no such thing as thinking. This same attitude was implicit in the strike led by John Galt.

That has not stopped angry denunciations, excommunications, psychologising and demonising of opponents.

Objectivism should not be a dogma; Ayn Rand was right, to say that if one practices Objectivism, then it cannot be a dogma. She was wrong, to imply that Objectivim cannot be a dogma.

I am glad to have visited Diana Hsieh's little bubble of opinion; now I have seen the "true believer" in full anti-glory. That site was as educational for me as visiting North Korea's official site, and for the same reason.

This "true believer" mentality reflects the flaws in Ayn Rand, as opposd to the virtues in Ayn Rand. But more deeply, it reflects the flaws of the true believers. I could discuss the Theory of Opposite Virtues, and point out that the true believers are carrying all that they lack — but that would be another posting.

:-({|=

[Paul Mawdsley]

Dennis,

Thank-you. You have provided some of the context I lack. You have provided a different, but equally passionate angle, on the same reality I am observing. I enjoyed experiencing your perspective and have gained a lot from your insights.

It's funny, the root of the problem is in the one thing Ayn Rand did not understand, her own psychology. And while she would automatically assume that her causal connections about someone's character were correct when she condemned them, the "condemned" must be very careful when making the causal connections about her character. I think the actualization of the movement Rand started depends on getting this right.

Paul

[Robert Campbell]

Barbara,

Here are some of my thoughts.

1. Is it an entirely understandable phenomenon, needing no explanation other than the characters and actions of the people who have been denounced?

No, because the moral condemnation expressed is disproportionate to the degree of wrongdoing--when there has been wrongdoing. (Or it's done in public when a private rebuke would be more appropriate.) Often, the denunciations are aimed at people whose only "offense" has been to criticize the denouncer's beliefs or cherished institutions; the alleged moral derelictions seem completely pretextual.

2. Is it consistent with any or all of the principles of Objectivism?

Yes, insofar as Ayn Rand preached a doctrine of moral perfection, and ascribed such perfection to herself. (The personal claim is not, strictly speaking, a principle of Objectivism, but it's in Rand's writings and is often treated as part of the philosophy.) A couple of other principles of Objectivism can also be cited--the notions of the arbitrary, and of moral sanction--though each needs to be exaggerated, if not pulled entirely out of shape, to justify the plagueful pattern of activity.

3. Does it arise from strengths in the philosophy of Objectivism?

In my opinion, no.

4. Does it arise from errors or weaknesses in the philosophy of Objectivism?

See 2. An exposition of the doctrine of moral perfection like Harry Binswanger's, in his 1981 Objectivist Forum article, makes it clear that there is a problem with Objectivism per se on this issue:

A "breached rationality," or what Ayn Rand has called the "mixed economy of reason and emotion," means the complete subordination of reason to emotion. Whenever a man elects to side with with his emotions against his reason, his premise is, "I'll go by reason--as long as my emotions permit it." He establishes his feelings as the ultimate authority that sets the domain in which his mind may operate. (Part 2, p. 3, my italics)

In other words, one is either morally perfect, or perfectly immoral (though it might take a little while for the total degradation or utter depravity to manifest themselves).

Rand denied any affinities with Stoicism--but this passage in Binswanger is completely Stoic: nothing is morally good except complete Virtue; everything else falls so far short of it as not to admit of degrees.

5. Does it arise from virtues in the personality and character of Ayn Rand?

Some of what enabled her to persevere in a hostile environment turned out to be less adaptive in a friendly environment.

6. Does it arise from flaws in the personality and character of Ayn Rand?

Inability to distinguish criticism of (any of) her ideas from a personal "attack."

7. Is its source to be found in the psychology and character of a particular type of person who is strongly drawn to Objectivism?

Definitely. I have my reservations about the Myers-Briggs, but I think Objectivism does tend to appeal to people who live in their heads most of the time, like to argue, and are deficient in social skills. What's more, if you don't have some appetite for moral denunciation, you're unlikely to persevere with Rand's writings and other material in the Objectivist canon, given their frequent Savonarola-ish tone.

8. Is it caused by the teachings of one or more Objectivist organizations?

The culture of the Ayn Rand Institute promotes it. The culture of, say, TOC does not. However, there is plenty of freelance denunciation going on, without any organizational backing or encouragement; there is sufficient inspiration for such behavior in canonical Objectivist writitings, without institutional support.

9. Is its source to be found in a handful of nut cases of no importance or consequence?

Some of the people who are given to chronic denunciation have serious personality problems and are rather widely understood to be nut cases. Others, whatever the condition of their personality, are highly placed in Objectivist circles, and cannot be brushed off as inconsequential. Some denunciatory behavior even looks opportunistic--the denouncer at least imagines that it will bring advancement in Rand-land, if not a leadership position.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

Here are my thoughts.

With regard to the periodic denunciations and "excommunications" that have plagued the Objectivist movement since its beginnings, what do you think is the cause (or causes)?

Before answering the questions, I want to mention that I dealt somewhat with this issue in four essays here on OL in Rants, “The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth” Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4, and the discussion threads.

One thing is clear from these discussions. Only the formal Objectivist movement has been hurt by the periodic denunciations and excommunications. Rand’s book sales have not, nor have Rand’s enemies grown because of the silliness of them (since her formal enemies usually engage in monkeyshines of their own). The spread of Rand’s core ideas has not been impaired in the slightest.

Widespread acceptance of the full “integrated philosophy” has been hindered, however. Frankly speaking, after seeing how people who claim they have “integrated” the philosophy act, I am not so sure this is a bad thing. If integrating Objectivism as a whole leads to becoming a small-minded obnoxious jerk, who needs it? Mankind?

Are these denouncers examples of Randian heroism? Are they the real-life equivalents of Howard Roark, John Galt, Dagny Taggart, etc.? Was Rand like one of her heroes when she denounced you and NB and all the others?

I can’t see the majority of kids in the world wanting to grow up to become like that, even after being indoctrinated to Objectivism. Most kids want to grow up to do something of their own with their lives, not live in the shadow of others casting stones.

One other aspect to these denunciations and excommunications is extremely important to note: they are done in public against people who have won an audience. People with small audiences are merely dismissed with a snarl. The ones with the largest audience are the ones most targeted, again and again. There is no such thing as a one-time denunciation and excommunication for the widely popular Objectivists who are rejected by the denouncers.

There is nothing inherently wrong with denouncing a person and writing him off as an acquaintance. As a good example, you mentioned a while back on SoloHQ that you once loaned money to a person and this person had to be energetically reminded to pay you back after an overly-long time had elapsed. If I remember the story correctly, the person showed ill will and seemed to disapprove of your wanting your money back, so despite finally receiving the money, you denounced this person to yourself (but not in public) and distanced yourself from that person. This is the correct manner and we all have done something like this in our lives.

What we witness in the Objectivist movement, however, is the urge to humiliate a person before a crowd – time and time again. This goes way beyond a purge. Whenever somebody does that, they have a strong reason. They are showing themselves and their power to the crowd by making an example out of the condemned person. The message they try to give is one of destruction with themselves as destroyer and they often dress it up with highfalutin phrases like “moral avenger,” etc. They are only successful in putting this image across to their disciples, though. To everyone else, they come across as extremely petty – often a laughing stock.

This leads to the fact that the denouncers are always the leaders (or leader wannabes) of formal Objectivist movements. One critical aspect of the act of denouncing and excommunicating is that it is always triggered by authority being challenged. All other reasons are secondary to this. The Number One unforgivable sin is to make any statement or do anything that they believe will somehow lower their standing before the members of the organization they lead (or want to lead).

The final preliminary aspect is that the people who do the denouncing are usually not strong achievers in any field except Objectivism, and even in the philosophy, their achievements are marginal market-wise compared to the works of Ayn Rand or you or NB. I wrote about this concerning a small tribe of denouncers in the article “Online Objectivist Mediocrity.”

Note that I did not select the worst items to analyze – I selected the best. The best these people had to offer was mediocre by normal standards.

I find it extremely interesting that you and NB did some serious denouncing during NBI days and for some time thereafter (as a reaction to the split), but once you produced solid works of your own – ones that were provably high quality and that sold well on the open market, you abandoned this practice.

1. Is it an entirely understandable phenomenon, needing no explanation other than the characters and actions of the people who have been denounced?

As I mentioned above, the character and actions of the good people who are denounced always involve questioning the authority of the denouncers. Note that these people (the denounced) are productive people of good will – usually far more productive than the ones denouncing them. Kelley questioned Peikoff’s authority. Edith Packer and George Reisman questioned Schwartz’s authority. And so on.

A very recent example was the wave of denunciations against Chris Sciabarra. He did not get on the anti-Branden band wagon of the tribe surrounding Perigo, Valliant and Hsieh, and even questioned the wisdom of their stance and acts in private e-mails. He challenged their authority over him and others in the Objectivist movement. That was his sin. Writing Russian Radical was merely something for them to bitch about.

(Of that bunch, I personally not only question their authority in the Objectivist movement, I laugh at it.)

One EXTREMELY important point to note is that people of provably bad character, like the Objectivist therapist, Lonnie Leonard, who used his therapy practice to intimidate patients into having sex with him, are hardly denounced at all. In his case, one of his victims wrote a book about it (Therapist by Ellen Plasil), yet he received very little attention denunciation-wise from the big-wigs. Observe that Lonnie Leonard did not challenge anyone’s authority. He did not go out in a blaze of spite from the top. He merely faded away.

2. Is it consistent with any or all of the principles of Objectivism?

Moral denunciation of evil is one of the formal principles of Objectivism. This principle gets distorted, though. Instead of real evil being denounced, non-evil associates are denounced and excommunicated as evil, with the real reason remaining unspoken (challenge to authority and power).

Peikoff twisted the derivation of ought from is, which is another Objectivist principle, all around like a pretzel in “Fact and Value” in order to arrive at a moral denunciation and excommunication of Kelley.

3. Does it arise from strengths in the philosophy of Objectivism?

Unfortunately, yes. One of the strengths of the philosophy is its presentation, which has always been denunciatory. I read somewhere that David Kelley mentioned that two-thirds of the comments in Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged are denunciations or highly negative and only one-third positive. Rand constantly denounced as a rhetorical device to stir the reader’s emotions.

Why this is a strength is that human beings respond well to scapegoating. All major social movements have had scapegoats. People organize well around a common villain. The strength stops there, however. Scapegoating is only a strong selling point in terms of emotions. When it is overused, it makes people turn off their critical rational faculty.

One of Rand’s most leading forms of rhetoric (which she used quite often and works) is the following: “I could say xxxxxxxxxx but I won’t.” Here she denounces something or someone by implication, but also excludes. The funny part is that she says she won’t say something she just said. Just like denouncing a person and excommunicating him, but maintaining his presence by constant digs and snipes that last years.

4. Does it arise from errors or weaknesses in the philosophy of Objectivism?

The Number One Objectivist weakness/error that results in this plague is the poorly formed notion of human nature owing to an all-or-nothing attitude.

Tabula rasa is partially true of a newborn since fully formed concepts do not exist, yet innate propensities that determine the form of many concepts are present in a baby. A newborn is not a complete blank, as is insinuated and even stated in Objectivism.

Some subconscious emotions can be programmed by conscious thought, not all as Rand stated.

Another weakness is the religious aspect of its packaging in Rand’s novels. This makes it attractive for people who are vulnerable to joining cults. Rand preached a lot. John Galt gathered a group of disciples, who also preached and were “fishermen of men” (but only the best). There are semi-religious symbols galore like the dollar sign. Galt was even “crucified” on a torture machine.

The idea of original sin is present in Objectivism’s view of man’s nature. Man must become morally perfect from a morally imperfect state through consciously choosing reason. The only thing missing is baptism to wash the sins of irrationality away.

The list goes on and on.

The result is that it is easy to establish a religious community with Objectivism. There are lectures instead of services. Missionary work is encouraged. Dating and relationships among Objectivist are vastly preferred (despite the high failure rate). And so on. The tendency is toward a fundamentalist religion approach, where questioning the doctrine is not tolerated. Wherever there is a religious community, there is a top preacher who wields power. When this power is challenged, the challengers must be purged.

One last weakness should be mentioned. Objectivism is usually presented emotionally in extremes – either exaltation or loathing. “Highest value” for love is presented, for example, not friendship. Harsh contempt and hatred is presented for the unapproved, not mere avoidance. This emphasis on emotional extremes is found in all areas where important values are discussed.

Also, there is a huge measure of negative emotions given in Objectivist literature. The abundant loathing and scorn found there are easily emulated and spread quickly to followers. This provides more than enough emotional fuel for denunciations.

5. Does it arise from virtues in the personality and character of Ayn Rand?

By looking at Rand’s personality, I assume that we are talking about Rand influencing behavior by setting an example.

One virtue in her personality that impacts the denunciations is her combativeness. She was not afraid to face any person or ideology. Moral denouncers draw inspiration from her courage (although they twist it around to suit their own needs).

Another virtue was in using her mind to examine everything. Nothing was too sacred to escape scrutiny and being discarded if found wanting. Moral denouncers twist this into the following phrase: “No one is too sacred to escape scrutiny and being discarded.”

6. Does it arise from flaws in the personality and character of Ayn Rand?

Obviously it does. Rand’s attraction to negative emotions strongly impacted the presentation of the philosophy and the behavior of her disciples. Also, her refusal to entertain criticism – with a huge chip on her shoulder all the time – is widely imitated. Her habit of trying to delete the entire value a denounced person once had to her is widely seen in present-day moral denouncers. Her overuse of the term “evil” is a factor. (This last is one more similarity with fundamentalist Christianity, where the buzzword is “sin.”)

7. Is its source to be found in the psychology and character of a particular type of person who is strongly drawn to Objectivism?

One of the types of person drawn to Objectivism is an extremely insecure person who seeks certainty. This person feels threatened by too much questioning. He seeks answers that sound good to cover the insecurity, not reasoned truth. Young people go through a strong phase like this, so her appeal to them is strong. Howard Roark, John Galt, Dagny Taggart, etc., give them the security of certainty.

Another type is the typical power monger and manipulator who can be found in all cults.

A further type is a person who is engaged in some kind of behavior that he wants to hide but justify to himself. This is often behavior that society condemns, like drunkenness or extreme promiscuity.

All of these types of people chime in when denunciations and excommunications occur.

8. Is it caused by the teachings of one or more Objectivist organizations?

ARI and ARI related organizations are foremost, but there are some independents – especially Solo Passion, where obnoxiousness is cultivated as a virtue. I have not seen this at TOC (and OL – we only denounce the denouncers on other sites after they have made a shameful spectacle out of themselves).

9. Is its source to be found in a handful of nut cases of no importance or consequence?

I see nut cases chime in sporadically, not consistently. The denunciations and excommunications I have seen are normally promoted (very actively) by intelligent people who hide their motives. In a word, they know exactly what they are doing and why.

10. Is it none of the above?

As I pointed out, it is all of the above and more.

I hope this is of some value to your examination of this important topic, Barbara. The only cure to denunciations and excommunications is to fully understand the causes, then devise remedies. Congratulations on a wonderful idea.

Michael

[Fran]

One EXTREMELY important point to note is that people of provably bad character, like the Objectivist therapist, Lonnie Leonard, who used his therapy practice to intimidate patients into having sex with him, are hardly denounced at all. In his case, one of his victims wrote a book about it (Therapist by Ellen Plasil), yet he received very little attention denunciation-wise from the big-wigs. Observe that Lonnie Leonard did not challenge anyone’s authority. He did not go out in a blaze of spite from the top. He merely faded away.

@&%$*~# &^@$!!!!!

Out of all the people they have denounced, he's the one who has actually committed a heinous crime, which is why I'd definitely want to be made aware of it. Yet I've known about Objectivism for ten years and this is the first I've heard of it!

I can't believe that they rant on relentlessly about Chris Sciabarra and the Brandens and let this one go with hardly a murmur - and these are the people who consider themselves to be champions of morality!

&%~@ #&! I've lost all respect for them now. I'm so angry.

[Dragonfly]

Now you mention it: I just finished reading Therapist by Ellen Plasil. It's no longer in print, but can be easily obtained second-hand. I got a good copy for $0.29! (+$9.79 to send it over the ocean...) It's a really amazing story and a must read for everyone who wants to know more about the dark sides of Objectivism. Leonard was highly regarded in Objectivist circles, and Allan Blumenthal referred patients (among them Plasil) to him while he had a long waiting list himself. In his therapy sessions she had often to lie naked on the floor, spread-eagled. On other occasions she had to perform a blow job on him, or she was penetrated brutally (perhaps Leonard tried to emulate Roark?). Blumenthal's role was very dubious: when she tried to tell him there was something terribly wrong with Leonard, Blumenthal refused to discuss it as long as she was Leonard's patient. Later, when Blumenthal definitely must have known about Leonard's doings, his only reaction was to no longer refer patients to him, but he kept his mouth shut. See also the Amazon reference. It's also illuminating to read how her Objectivist friends denounced her when she finally took action against Leonard. A real eye-opener!

[Fran]

Dragonfly, does it mention what happened to Plasil in the end? Did she ever get over it?

[gary williams]

MSK said,

One other aspect to these denunciations and excommunications is extremely important to note: they are done in public against people who have won an audience. People with small audiences are merely dismissed with a snarl. The ones with the largest audience are the ones most targeted, again and again. There is no such thing as a one-time denunciation and excommunication for the widely popular Objectivists who are rejected by the denouncers

That is so true.

gw

[Ellen Stuttle]

Fran, for a bit of information on Lonnie Leonard, see this post by me on the "A Quote (from AB)..." thread in the Branden Corner.

I don't suppose Lonnie would have been seen as a threat by AR and her close circle of associates, except by Allan Blumenthal. I've never learned if AR herself even knew of Lonnie, or ever heard of it when his activities were made public and (eventually, some years later) were brought to trial. Her associates might have protected her from having to be distraught at the ugliness of what was happening.

The Lonnie stuff was made public in O'ist circles just about at the same time Allan broke with AR. Allan's "authority" might in a sense have been challenged by Lonnie. My belief is that Allan was afraid of Lonnie (might even have actually been threatened by him, either a direct threat to him or a threat to Joan), and that that's the deeper reason why Allan wouldn't talk to Ellen Plaisil when EP tried to get some information from Allan as to what he thought of Lonnie. (By then, Plaisil was developing "bad vibes" and wanted to find out if Allan -- who had meanwhile broken relationships with Lonnie and stopped recommending clients to him -- knew anything about the sort of stuff Lonnie was doing, and what he thought about it. Allan said it was against professional ethics for him to say anything while Plaisil was still a client of Lonnie's; when Plaisil persisted with trying to get some answers, Allan hung up the phone. For a time, a few years later when Plaisil and some others decided to try to bring malpractice charges against Lonnie, Plaisil and her lawyers considered bringing a subsidiary malpractice suit against Allan; but they decided that this would make things too complex and difficult in terms of winning the case against Lonnie.)

Ellen

PS: Dragonfly has posted something on this while I was writing the above, and Fran has asked what became of Ellen Plaisil. Last I heard -- which was some years ago, I think in '98 -- she was still living in the Midwest (where she'd gone to "recover," one might say, from the denunciations of some of Lonnie's former clients) and was still happily married to the guy she'd meanwhile married. My source was a mutual friend from the New York O'ist '70s, the same friend who told me what became of Lonnie (he moved to Florida, became a beekeeper, and eventually drank himself to death). I haven't been in touch with the mutual friend since talking with her on the phone a couple times in the late '90s (nothing to do with a "falling out" or anything; we just haven't been in touch, both of us having gone our own ways, me to Connecticut, her to the Chicago area, and all that) and have heard nothing further about Plaisil from anyone else.

___

[Dragonfly]

Hasn't she become a lawyer? There are at least references on the Internet to a lawyer Ellen Plasil, specialized in family law (Ellen S.: note the correct spelling).

[Ellen Stuttle]

Blumenthal's role was very dubious: when she tried to tell him there was something terribly wrong with Leonard, Blumenthal refused to discuss it as long as she was Leonard's patient. Later, when Blumenthal definitely must have known about Leonard's doings, his only reaction was to no longer refer patients to him, but he kept his mouth shut.

The chronology was the reverse. Allan learned at least enough about Lonnie's doings to break relationships with him and quit referring clients to him in early '71. As described in the post I linked above, that was when I was taking a course with Allan. Edie Langer, his wife, soon-to-be ex-wife, at the time was also taking the course (she was an internist), as was Edith Packer. Edie and Edith would sit in one corner of the room having whispered conversations with "something monumental is occurring" expressions. Once when I arrived, Edith was closeted in Allan's private office, the door locked, and she came out looking grim, as did Allan himself when he emerged to start the class. I was picking up all the little clues I could. I knew it pertained to Lonnie, and that Edie was splitting with him. I'd already formed a certain suspicion of Lonnie even before I met him, because of something a girl (young woman) I'd met who was a client of his had told me -- about its being so cute the way she'd arrived a little early for a session and Lonnie had been skipping buck naked through the reception room, supposedly on his way to a shower and having forgotten to lock the door. There was something a little uneasy in the way she told this, and in other details of inflection and in what she said. I wondered about it. Then I met him at that course.

Ellen

___

[Fran]

Thanks for those insights Ellen. It's interesting to me that you knew there was something depraved about about him.

I wonder why then he could be held up as a model Objectivist, when it doesn't look like he was that good at hiding it?

[Fran]

Hasn't she become a lawyer? There are at least references on the Internet to a lawyer Ellen Plasil, specialized in family law

Thanks Dragonfly - I tried Googling her too and wasn't sure if it was the same person.

I was wondering where it ended with her in the book?

[Dragonfly]

Lonnie had been skipping buck naked through the reception room, supposedly on his way to a shower and having forgotten to lock the door

Exactly the same ploy he used with Plasil: she found him one day naked in the hall, and his explanation was: "I was on my way to the shower when you came out of my office". Then he got a stethoscope to check her vital signs for which she had to remove her blouse ("First of all, I'm a doctor. I was doing physical examinations long before I ever practiced psychiatry. Second of all, don't you trust me?"). Well, the rest you can guess.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wonder why then he could be held up as a model Objectivist, when it doesn't look like he was that good at hiding it?

Lonnie was mesmerizing to some. He had a power. He exuded a sexual crackle. A comparison which I thought of was to Yul Brynner (sp?). There was a controlled, feline grace of motion, a strong alpha presence. But whereas I found Brynner very on-turning, Lonnie repelled me, since I sensed his desire for manipulation. He was keenly attuned to which persons he could manipulate and which he couldn't, so that his cadre of acolytes were selected for their responsiveness to him.

An important factor was the sexual repressiveness of the O'ist sex ethics. Although that ethics extols sex, it's actually straight-laced. Lonnie's group considered themselves the liberated O'ists -- it was specifically on the sex theory that he exposited differences from basic O'ism. He ended up running a sort of musical chairs "brothel" with him pulling the strings. Part of his sex theory was that HE was a perfectly realized male, so it was a test of a woman's femininity how she reacted to him: a healthy female would be irresistably attracted to and have the desire to please him, so the story went. A healthy male would recognize that Lonnie was an ideal of the type.

You can see a similar sort of dynamics in the SOLOP crowd, with the way they praise Linz and his KASS philosophy -- they're the "free" O'ists, the non-uptight ones, so the theory goes. With the Lonnie crowd, there was that sort of thing, only more so.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

Fran:

I was wondering where it ended with her in the book?

She sued Leonard, won, and got $150000. At the end of the book she writes:

 The rewards of the journey have been more than just the peace I was hoping would come from unlocking memories and retracing events. The rewards are greater than knowing that another Dr. Leonard could not happen to me again. Today, my life is full and rich. I am a strong, thriving, independent woman who knows where she's going, where she's been and who she is. For the first time in my life, I feel whole.

 Today, I'm happier than I ever thought was possible..

.

[Ellen Stuttle]

(Ellen S.: note the correct spelling).

Right. I just checked because of your persistence in spelling it differently than I remembered it. I thought it was Plaisil, but it's given as Plasil on the book.

On the other hand..., since we're correcting spellings: AB's first name is "Allan," not "Alan" or "Allen." (For some reason his name is frequently misspelled in O'ist sources.)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Dragonfly, since you've recently read Therapist, possibly you remember where a particular passage occurs. She talks at one point of feeling frightened because of Lonnie's musings about how it would be morally ok to kill someone who's a threat to one's career. Ellen P. took these musings as applying to her; my belief is that Lonnie was thinking outloud about the threat that Allan B. might pose. Do you happen to know where in the book the passage appears?

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

Ellen:

On the other hand..., since we're correcting spellings: AB's first name is "Allan," not "Alan" or "Allen." (For some reason his name is frequently misspelled in O'ist sources.)

Yes, I'd discovered that in the meantime... About misspellings: there are also a lot number of people who systematically write "Brandon" instead of "Branden".

[Ellen Stuttle]

About misspellings: there are also a lot number of people who systematically write "Brandon" instead of "Branden".

And "Reardon" instead of "Rearden." (Or is it the reverse? ;-) I periodically have to check because of how often the misspelling occurs.)

Ellen

___

[Mike Hardy]

An important factor was the sexual repressiveness of the O'ist sex ethics.  Although that ethics extols sex' date=' it's actually straight-laced.  

Ellen

___[/quote']

How much "O'ist sex ethics" is there? It seems to me there's not much

explicit philosophical writing on it---just sort of a prevailing culture. I've seen

some statements that O'ism holds that sex should be reserved for romantic

relationships. Is there anything in Rand's writings or elsewhere in the O'ist

literature that says that? That "friends with benefits" etc., is wrong? Did Ayn

Rand herself even think that? I think she did disapprove of sleeping around

thoughtlessly just as she disapproved of doing anything thoughtlessly, and

she had a visceral distaste for lesbianism that she seemed to assume

everyone shared. But the "straight-laced" thing seems to be maybe an

attribute of the personalities of a few of the leaders that diffused through

the culture rather than being one of the explicit principles. -- Mike Hardy

[Dragonfly]

Ellen:

Dragonfly, since you've recently read Therapist, possibly you remember where a particular passage occurs. She talks at one point of feeling frightened because of Lonnie's musings about how it would be morally ok to kill someone who's a threat to one's career. Ellen P. took these musings as applying to her; my belief is that Lonnie was thinking outloud about the threat that Allan B. might pose. Do you happen to know where in the book the passage appears?

Sorry, I tried to find it by quickly rereading the book, but without success..

[Ellen Stuttle]

How much "O'ist sex ethics" is there?  It seems to me there's not much explicit philosophical writing on it---just sort of a prevailing culture.

I think you're right about the lack of much "explicit philosophical" writing on issues pertaining to the O'ist theory of sex, at least back then. There was Francisco's speech to Hank in Atlas about the psychology of a playboy, and the delineations of the sexual psychologies of the characters. The "prevailing culture," though, I think could properly be described as "up-tight." For sure, Lonnie's crew of clients got mileage out of their "freedom" from O'ist constraints, and it was put about as the explanation of why Allan quit recommending clients to Lonnie that they had differences on the philosophy of sex.

I think she did disapprove of sleeping around thoughtlessly just as she disapproved of doing anything thoughtlessly,...

Yeah, well, by the time you got done thinking about it with as much carefulness as seemed to be required, where was the fun? (See the second half of a post - #28953 - by George Smith on A2 from earlier today if you want more of an idea, Mike. I'm not in the mood for trying to get graphic. What George talks about there suits the purpose.)

[...] and she had a visceral distaste for lesbianism [...].

You mean male homosexuality? I don't recall her ever having been reported as commenting on lesbianism either with distaste or otherwise.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Sorry, I tried to find it by quickly rereading the book, but without success..

Thanks for looking. I might (or might not) try to find it later, depends on how the week shapes up.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Funny how this discussion got sidetracked to sex...

:-k

Hmmmmm...

Michael