Peikoff: The Great Pretender

[Dennis Hardin]

I sent Nathaniel my complete set of Seminar records (48) two years ago because he had given all his away. He and Leigh had a pro record them onto modern media. Leigh sent me a DVD with all of them on it plus some other 1960 NBI records I had included in the shipment.

edit: it's too much work as I don't have a table of contents or index--

If they’re not going to release these, how about making a copy of this DVD for the Olers you really like?

The Doctor

--Brant's Chum

I still have all of the Academic Associates Seminar recordings (along with an index). I participated in two of the Q & A sessions, both of which dealt with sexual issues. Nathaniel asked us to write out our questions and reviewed them beforehand. I don't recall if the issue of penis size was discussed. I'll have to check that out.

Problem is, I don't like much of anybody. Least of all, people who look like Rowan Atkinson.

[Dennis Hardin]

A while ago Jim Valliant said something to the effect that even if Rand didn't say "Leonard is my intellectual heir" he is entitled to call himself that because she approved of his course on Objectivism, etc.

However, Peikoff says on the podcast that Rand designated him her "intellectual heir." I'm skeptical of this given Rand's split with Branden and Peikoff's history of playing fast and loose with the truth, but who knows. I haven't heard any dissent from Schwartz, Binswanger and others on this.

-Neil Parille

That's the sort of dim-witted "logic" we have come to expect from Valliant. In point of fact, I believe Peikoff himself admitted in follow-up lectures that parts of his basic course on Objectivism were all wrong.

If you had heard a word of dissent from Schwartz, Binswanger or any of the sycophants, they would have met the fate of Reisman, Kelley, Tracinski, et. al. How long do you think Lenny would be willing to tolerate any challenge to his authority? Too bad none of them had the courage, but then, genuine Ayn Rand heroes are few and far between.

[Brant Gaede]

I sent Nathaniel my complete set of Seminar records (48) two years ago because he had given all his away. He and Leigh had a pro record them onto modern media. Leigh sent me a DVD with all of them on it plus some other 1960 NBI records I had included in the shipment.

If they're not going to release these, how about making a copy of this DVD for the Olers you really like?

The Doctor

--Brant's Chum

They aren't my property. That the DVD is doesn't mean I have the right to make copies and pass them around. I also have a bunch of paintings. Originals. But the artist has the copyright. I can't reproduce those either.

--Brant

get educated

[Ellen Stuttle]

Intellectual Heirs: Back to this issue of Rand having earlier candidates for her "intellectual heir:" the references in Heller to Mannheimer were from 1947, way before Rand had crystallized Objectivism. If the one reference (only her typist actually said that term, the other person mentioned, Jack Bungay, is quoted in a manner which implies that Heller may have prompted him with that term) is accurate, and Rand actually used that term in describing Mannheimer, it is doubtful that she meant it as anything similar to the role that she later chose for Nathaniel Branden, ten years later, after the publication of Atlas Shrugged, as the heir to her philosophical movement. Did Mannheimer know of this title bestowed upon him? Did he accept it? Did he write anything (he was a playwright), make any public pronouncements, that could be described as a product of the "intellectual heir" to Ayn Rand?

The same can be said about her relationship to Thaddeus Ashby, whom Heller describes as closer to a possible romantic relationship. Whatever intellectual kinships she may have had with Mannheimer or Ashby in their "late-night discussions," she never publicly (in print or other media) described them as intellectual heirs, and they apparently never did, either.

I, too, am skeptical about the solitary report from June Kurisu (the secretary quoted -- I'll repeat the full quote below).

Did Heller ask any others of the still-surviving persons she interviewed who knew Rand back then if they ever heard her refer to Mannheimer as her "intellectual heir"?

Two details: Heller doesn't quote Bungay [edited from "Burgess"; see the quote below] as using the description "intellectual heir," merely "heir." I took this to mean that Bungay [edited from "Burgess"] thought that Rand was going to name Mannheimer as her beneficiary in her will.

And, again, the "intellectual heir" designation of Nathaniel pre-dated Rand's naming her philosophy, and any idea of NB's teaching courses on her philosophy. She called NB her "intellectual heir" in the "About the Author" when Atlas was published.

--

Repeating the Heller quote:

Heller, pp. 176-77

During the summer of 1947, and on weekends aferward, [June] Kurisu typed the author's handwirtten manuscript pages and her personal letters and sometimes typed for Mannheimer at Rand's request. [....]

Rand referred to Mannheimer as her "intellectual heir," the typist recalled. Another frequent guest, Hal Wallace's personal assistant Jack Burgess [CORRECTION: It's "Bungay," as Jerry reported; I don't know how I mistyped that], similarily remembered, "She was terribly terribly fond of him. They were very close fiends. I thought he was going to be her heir then." But "intellectual heir," that odd honorific, which Rand seems to have made up, would not belong to Mannheimer for long.

Ellen

Edited July 2, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

A while ago Jim Valliant said something to the effect that even if Rand didn't say "Leonard is my intellectual heir" he is entitled to call himself that because she approved of his course on Objectivism, etc.

[....]

Do you (Neil) have the quote -- or is this another example of your misremembering something (as you have several times, for instance, with things I said)?

[....] How long do you think Lenny would be willing to tolerate any challenge to his authority? Too bad none of them had the courage, but then, genuine Ayn Rand heroes are few and far between.

Well...whether "genuine Ayn Rand heroes or not," both Schwartz and Binswanger are reported to have had their disagreements with Leonard Peikoff. Indeed, the joke back at the time of the Reisman split was that Leonard was in danger of being excommunicated by Peter. Harry and Leonard had some sort of falling out, the reason for which I do not know. They haven't for a number of years been exactly "friends."

Ellen

[9thdoctor]

They aren't my property. That the DVD is doesn't mean I have the right to make copies and pass them around. I also have a bunch of paintings. Originals. But the artist has the copyright. I can't reproduce those either.

--Brant

get educated

D’Oh! Speaking for myself, I do make a distinction/exception when the material in question is not commercially available, won’t ever be commercially available again, and is kept among friends (not done as a business). There’s a considerable subculture in the opera world for sharing rare recordings, call them pirates but there’s great treasures to be had. Fans devoted enough to listen in spite of the amateur sound quality generally do buy the commercially available recording as well, comparing is a big part of the fun. Maria Callas reportedly treasured the pirate version of her Lucia di Lammermoor performance from Berlin, often playing it for visitors. Grateful Dead fans are especially known for this as well. A positive function this serves is to save treasures from the memory hole.

In any event, never mind.

[Brant Gaede]

They aren't my property. That the DVD is doesn't mean I have the right to make copies and pass them around. I also have a bunch of paintings. Originals. But the artist has the copyright. I can't reproduce those either.

--Brant

get educated

D'Oh! Speaking for myself, I do make a distinction/exception when the material in question is not commercially available, won't ever be commercially available again, and is kept among friends (not done as a business). There's a considerable subculture in the opera world for sharing rare recordings, call them pirates but there's great treasures to be had. Fans devoted enough to listen in spite of the amateur sound quality generally do buy the commercially available recording as well, comparing is a big part of the fun. Maria Callas reportedly treasured the pirate version of her Lucia di Lammermoor performance from Berlin, often playing it for visitors. Grateful Dead fans are especially known for this as well. A positive function this serves is to save treasures from the memory hole.

In any event, never mind.

It is the intention of the Brandens to make these recordings available. Call his office and ask Leigh about them. Expressed interest would be encouraging to them to shake a leg on this. I did suggest to her they be made available in one-year tranches: four tranches of 12 each and she thought it was a good idea.

http://www.nathanielbranden.com

--Brant

Edited July 2, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Dennis Hardin]

[....] How long do you think Lenny would be willing to tolerate any challenge to his authority? Too bad none of them had the courage, but then, genuine Ayn Rand heroes are few and far between.

Well...whether "genuine Ayn Rand heroes or not," both Schwartz and Binswanger are reported to have had their disagreements with Leonard Peikoff. Indeed, the joke back at the time of the Reisman split was that Leonard was in danger of being excommunicated by Peter. Harry and Leonard had some sort of falling out, the reason for which I do not know. They haven't for a number of years been exactly "friends."

Ellen

If Schwartz opposed Peikoff's decision to give Reisman the old Objectivist heave-ho, why did so few people hear about it? I certainly didn't. If it's true that Schwartz opposed the "condemnation"--and this is the first I have heard that he did--his failure to speak out about it just provides further confirmation that the imperial Lenny rules his little kingdom with an iron fist. As to Peikoff and Binswanger--didn't I read somewhere that Binswanger advocated voting for George Bush, despite Lenny's anti-Republican fatwa? That would definitely put him in Lenny's doghouse, but Harry's apparent "failure to grasp Objectivist fundamentals" was obviously not seen as grounds for divorce. An "error of knowledge," no doubt, but not a challenge to papal authority. Totally reconcilable.

[Brant Gaede]

They aren't my property. That the DVD is doesn't mean I have the right to make copies and pass them around. I also have a bunch of paintings. Originals. But the artist has the copyright. I can't reproduce those either.

--Brant

get educated

D'Oh! Speaking for myself, I do make a distinction/exception when the material in question is not commercially available, won't ever be commercially available again, and is kept among friends (not done as a business). There's a considerable subculture in the opera world for sharing rare recordings, call them pirates but there's great treasures to be had. Fans devoted enough to listen in spite of the amateur sound quality generally do buy the commercially available recording as well, comparing is a big part of the fun. Maria Callas reportedly treasured the pirate version of her Lucia di Lammermoor performance from Berlin, often playing it for visitors. Grateful Dead fans are especially known for this as well. A positive function this serves is to save treasures from the memory hole.

In any event, never mind.

This is an interesting grey area. I'd suggest it might be considered a matter of passive-permission copyright. That is, if no one objects it's tentatively okay; and if someone does and has a moral-legal claim then the primary parties might work it out privately. The issue of copyright and Objectivist political principles has not been well worked out IMHO. Regardless, in most cases the copyright-holder usually benefits most from the early publication of the work in question. Later it's more to protect the integrity of the work as such. All this is akin to patent protections of inventions. It's not easy to understand a political-philosophical principle with an expiration of a time-line--said time-line has to be mostly arbitrary or outright rationalization--i.e., there has to be an end to it so why a beginning? So inventions might be made and books written? I don't know about inventions, but Victor Hugo was paid a flat sum for all rights to his greatest novel by the publisher--a gigantic sum at the time--who apparently more than made his money back. U.S. Grant was offered a small amount for his memoirs and he almost accepted, but Samuel Clements advised him not to and they ended up paying his debts and providing for his heirs.

Look, I have to come to the conclusion in cases of copyright and patents that there is a property right properly represented by such, but there is also mixed in something of the arbitrary respecting the time-line which I do think should be finite but how finite can't be particularly found in a principle except the vague one here of justice to a creator. I see a justification for the arbitrary in this, but the arbitrary is not primary, it simply cannot be avoided.

--Brant

I had a few so I'll probably revise this tomorrow morning

Edited July 3, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Rich Engle]

This stuff does indicate that Rand was in Pygmalion mode.

I keep having a hunch that I cannot get rid of: that Rand tried to make her perfect lover, with NB as the subject she finally settled on. And she had this intent from the outset of her meeting with NB, or very near to it.

This is only speculation, but it won't go away in my mind. Especially when I see a legacy of some (but not all) "sausage-maker" Objectivist gurus going around trying to make good sausage-Objectivists...

Michael

I have no doubt about this. That became crystal clear to me after reading "My Years With Ayn Rand." Even if you were to attack what was expressed in that book as being warped or subjective. . . even if that were true (and I don't see a bit of that), there would still be enough there to lead you to that sentiment. She was looking for her Mr. Perfect. The perfect bundle of lover and thinker that aligned with her vision of such. The total package. It really seems that she expressed that far more intensely about NB than any of the others. It's no wonder she went thermonuclear when he excused himself from everything.

[9thdoctor]

It is the intention of the Brandens to make these recordings available. Call his office and ask Leigh about them. Expressed interest would be encouraging to them to shake a leg on this.

I think this discussion does the trick. I didn’t realize it was something they were thinking of republishing, I thought it was probably just superceded formulations from Dr. Branden’s self-esteem work, plus Nixon era political commentary, and little bit of god knows what else mixed in. So nothing marketable today, but I wouldn’t know, I haven’t heard them. The fact that he didn’t keep copies figured into that assumption. I’ve bought all his books (oops, wait, the one on Women’s Self Esteem I skipped), recommended them, lent them out and have generally been a NB booster for many years. I have signed copies, I’ve met him a few times, etcetera and so on. I wasn’t thinking of stealing from him.

The issue of copyright and Objectivist political principles has not been well worked out IMHO.

Here’s a tricky one, an old timer (I can’t check who it was) supplied Robert Campbell with copies of the late seventies Objectivist Calendar for the Rewrite Squad thread. Was that infringement? The mind reels.

[jriggenbach]

I didn't realize it was something they were thinking of republishing, I thought it was probably just superceded formulations from Dr. Branden's self-esteem work, plus Nixon era political commentary, and little bit of god knows what else mixed in. So nothing marketable today, but I wouldn't know, I haven't heard them.

I haven't heard them in many, many years. But one example of what this set of discs included is the following: at some point in 1973, I asked Nathaniel if he thought one or two Seminars might be profitably devoted to discussion of aesthetic questions. He said he thought that would be worth doing. I wrote the questions for the two sessions and recruited the other participants - one of them was Wendy McElroy - and we gathered at Nathaniel's house in Beverly Hills to record.

I'd love to hear those discussions again.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

I didn't realize it was something they were thinking of republishing, I thought it was probably just superceded formulations from Dr. Branden's self-esteem work, plus Nixon era political commentary, and little bit of god knows what else mixed in. So nothing marketable today, but I wouldn't know, I haven't heard them.

I haven't heard them in many, many years. But one example of what this set of discs included is the following: at some point in 1973, I asked Nathaniel if he thought one or two Seminars might be profitably devoted to discussion of aesthetic questions. He said he thought that would be worth doing. I wrote the questions for the two sessions and recruited the other participants - one of them was Wendy McElroy - and we gathered at Nathaniel's house in Beverly Hills to record.

I'd love to hear those discussions again.

JR

I'll send Leigh an email in a week telling her people are interested. Right now it's the Fourth weekend and then everybody's going to Sin City.

In his prime Nathaniel could speak extemporaneously at length with such quality the material was practically ready for publication. Ayn Rand could too in the early 1960s. This material is both good and important and an historical record of Objectivism's main mind at the time.

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

There have to be plenty of ARI members and even people high up who don't agree with what Peikoff has permitted to be done with Rand's papers.

On the other hand, what benefit is there in publicly criticizing the ARI and in risking excommunication?

-Neil Parille

[Alfonso Jones]

I didn't realize it was something they were thinking of republishing, I thought it was probably just superceded formulations from Dr. Branden's self-esteem work, plus Nixon era political commentary, and little bit of god knows what else mixed in. So nothing marketable today, but I wouldn't know, I haven't heard them.

I haven't heard them in many, many years. But one example of what this set of discs included is the following: at some point in 1973, I asked Nathaniel if he thought one or two Seminars might be profitably devoted to discussion of aesthetic questions. He said he thought that would be worth doing. I wrote the questions for the two sessions and recruited the other participants - one of them was Wendy McElroy - and we gathered at Nathaniel's house in Beverly Hills to record.

I'd love to hear those discussions again.

JR

I'll send Leigh an email in a week telling her people are interested. Right now it's the Fourth weekend and then everybody's going to Sin City.

In his prime Nathaniel could speak extemporaneously at length with such quality the material was practically ready for publication. Ayn Rand could too in the early 1960s. This material is both good and important and an historical record of Objectivism's main mind at the time.

--Brant

Brant -

Agreed. Please advise Leigh of strong interest in these materials being made available.

Bill P

[Robert Campbell]

Here's a tricky one, an old timer (I can't check who it was) supplied Robert Campbell with copies of the late seventies Objectivist Calendar for the Rewrite Squad thread. Was that infringement? The mind reels.

ND,

That was Dennis Hardin, to whom I am greatly indebted.

I'm pretty sure that anything I've done with those items from the Calendar meets the criteria for "fair use."

Robert Campbell

PS. At Free Minds I met another long-time Objectivist who owns a complete set of the Objectivist Calendar. Which is truly scarce. I asked during my talk how many in the audience (upwards of 30 people, many of whom had been in Rand-land for a long time) knew that Rand had every published any Q&A material during her lifetime and he was apparently the only one there who knew.

[9thdoctor]

I'd love to hear those discussions again.

They sound better by the minute, I sure bet they’re far superior to the Peikoff podcasts!

That was Dennis Hardin, to whom I am greatly indebted.

I'm pretty sure that anything I've done with those items from the Calendar meets the criteria for "fair use."

Indeed, the gent merits the hat tip from all and sundry!

I brought it up because…well never mind, it’s all above on this thread, no need to rehash.

[Barbara Branden]

This may have been mentioned on the rather extensive thread regarding Heller’s book. However, I did not see any reference to it, and I think the topic is worthy of it’s own thread.

If I have my mud-throwing Objectivist history correct, Peikoff condemns the Brandens for deception and lying in their relationship with Ayn Rand. In large measure, Peikoff’s moral indignation over the Brandens supposedly derives from his steadfast devotion to the moral purity of Ayn Rand’s name. He represents himself as her self-appointed posthumous guardian. Objectivists on both sides of the issue seem to take that much for granted.

I came across this passage in Anne Heller’s Ayn Rand and the World She Made:

“She [Rand] kept him [Peikoff] off balance by favoring him as her ‘number one man’ without designating him her official philosophical successor or ‘intellectual heir.’ After Branden, it is unlikely that she would again invest a follower with so much trust and power. Yet he must have wanted the validation that came with the title ‘intellectual heir,’ for he claimed it after her death, even posting it on his Web site, implying to others that she had bestowed it on him in her will (there is no such reference)…” (p. 387)

Following the publication of Heller’s biography, has Peikoff offered any evidence that she is wrong? Because if Heller is right about Rand’s will—and I want to stress the fact that I don’t know whether she is or not--it looks as though her self-appointed “guardian” may be the one who is actively defiling Rand’s legacy and honor. Only, in his case, Ayn Rand cannot be accused of creating an impossible situation or participating in the deception---and Peikoff’s personal campaign of lies and outright fraud continues until this day.

I have read Rand's will, and can confirm Anne Heller's statement that there is no reference in it to Peikoff being designated her "intellectual heir."

And she had told me in 1968 that never again would she name anyone as her intellectual heir. It was the same conversation in which she said she never wanted anyone to form on organization that used her name in its title, and, in fact, wanted no formal organization to be created that was dedicated to teaching her philosophy. You will note that during her lifetime, no such organizations were created.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Ellen wrote: "Well...whether 'genuine Ayn Rand heroes or not,' both Schwartz and Binswanger are reported to have had their disagreements with Leonard Peikoff. Indeed, the joke back at the time of the Reisman split was that Leonard was in danger of being excommunicated by Peter. Harry and Leonard had some sort of falling out, the reason for which I do not know. They haven't for a number of years been exactly 'friends.'"

When I read, on the internet, Peikoff's exchanges with Reisman, Binswanger, and Schwartz, I had a very different impression of the distribution of power -- an impression that fits my prior and subsequent understanding of Peikoff. It seemed evident to me that Peikoff did not want to excommunicate Reismam , and would not have done so if Binswanger and Schwartz had not made it an issue of morality that he do so, and of loyalty to them -- which was again, so they informed Peikoff, a moral issue. Leonard, who has always had deep-seated self-doubts about his ability to judge moral issues, and had always needed someone to tell him what to think and how to act in such matters, was extremely vulnerable and was rather easily intimidated, as presumably the other two were well aware of, and he unhappily caved in.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

I'd love to hear those discussions again.

They sound better by the minute, I sure bet they're far superior to the Peikoff podcasts!

They are far and away better than Peikoff's podcasts. The recordings demonstrate the sheer ability of the man to speak at length and show why he was so qualified to teach Objectivism at NBI. You get this kind of ability with brains and complete immersion in the material. He covers much more than Objectivism, of course.

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

Barbara,

You write:

And she had told me in 1968 that never again would she name anyone as her intellectual heir. It was the same conversation in which she said she never wanted anyone to form on organization that used her name in its title, and, in fact, wanted no formal organization to be created that was dedicated to teaching her philosophy. You will note that during her lifetime, no such organizations were created.

But wasn't the NBI dedicate to teaching "her [Rand's] philosophy"?

Although I don't know, I think it's possible that Rand's mind may have changed as the years went by. Even after '68 there was a lecture service. Rand also served as "philosophical consultant" to "The Objectivist Forum." It's hard to imagine a movement getting traction in society without some formal organization behind it.

I think it's highly unlikely that she called anyone her "intellectual heir" again.

-Neil Parille

Edited July 5, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Reidy]

In addition to NBI there was the Foundation for the New Intellectual, a non-profit. Holzer announced its creation in The Objectivist and, a year or two later, Nathaniel Branden's resignation as trustee.

[Brant Gaede]

In addition to NBI there was the Foundation for the New Intellectual, a non-profit. Holzer announced its creation in The Objectivist and, a year or two later, Nathaniel Branden's resignation as trustee.

That just died.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Leonard, who has always had deep-seated self-doubts about his ability to judge moral issues, and had always needed someone to tell him what to think and how to act in such matters, was extremely vulnerable and was rather easily intimidated, as presumably the other two were well aware of, and he unhappily caved in.

Barbara

An egomaniac with low self-esteem. That's quite a combination.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> It seemed evident to me that Peikoff did not want to excommunicate Reismam , and would not have done so if Binswanger and Schwartz had not made it an issue of morality that he do so, and of loyalty to them -- which was again, so they informed Peikoff, a moral issue. [barbara]

I was the one who confronted him about his reasoning on this in the question period after his lecture on how to judge people. (No one else challenged him at that summer conference on how to apply moral judgment.) I explained to him why it seemed his logic was false and asked him to explain or defend it some more.

He had discussed 'complex cases' and deciding between the opposing claims of 'two sets of? friends'. Thinly veiled reference to George and Edith.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Philip Coates