Branden's High Points (misleading title by OP)

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Phil,

I do not have the time for a detailed review of Branden's work. However, I think Branden's most valuable strain of thought has been to focus on something Rand did not write about: developmental psychology. Branden's thrust in stressing that personal growth can be significantly aided by a set of personal practices that stress awareness and acceptance of emotions is an important insight and a significantly different take on self esteem than that advanced by Rand.

My favorite Branden books are Psychology of Romantic Love and The Six Pillars of Self Esteem. The latter is important because it presents the definitive outline of Branden's theory of self-development. He presents the pillars as self acceptance, self-assertiveness,purposeful living, self-responsibility, living consciously and personal integrity. I think the major areas in which Branden expands on Rand are self-acceptance and living consciously. In Psychology of Romantic Love, you can find Branden's most complete discussion of psychological visibility.

I think The Psychology of Self Esteem is Branden's weakest book on psychology, but this weakness includes problems that are also endemic in Rand. In general, I think Branden presents an overly simplistic model of anxiety. A complete treatment of anxiety would include biological as well as psychological determinants of well-being. However, this book must be evaluated by the state of medical knowledge at the time it was written. In the case of clinical anxiety, medical knowledge was still fairly rudimentary.

Sorry for the brief response to your initial call for comment, but this will have to suffice for now.

Jim

[william.scherk]

William, thanks for your benevolent response in post 19.

You are welcome.

> Phil, what was the name of that paper/presentation, please?

It was called "Heroes and Role Models". I think I gave a first version of the talk at the Silicon Valley Objectivists in the Spring of 2006 and then the final version at The Atlas Society Summer Conference that year..

Thanks.

> convince Phil that it would not go against Objectivism to make this sampler/example available in written English.

I plan to write it up as a formal essay - it's actually ninety percent there already. .

That is great, encouraging. I hope you keep at it, apace with your other interests.

And I would have offered something like this to an Objectivist magazine or JARS-like journal, say, 10 years ago, but I've become less and less interested in an Objectivist or objectivish audience. (I have a nice abstract and outline plus my speech 'bullets', but you can probably understand why I'm not strongly motivated to post them here.).

I think that abstract may be posted here at OL. I also seem to remember photos of the festivities from TAS SS 2006, and also more than a few bits of informal review -- all positive. I will collect them for you ...

I can understand not re-posting the abstract, for sure, and obviously posting the bullet points would be as dull as me posting bullet points.

• Dull
  
• Like reading someone's notes
  
• Dull dull dull
  

It is a lot of work and craft, writing. Writing for a particular audience is challenging; that is where I would take advice were I in your situation.

What ideal online or offline publication model do you have in mind, Phil -- if you have thought about that in detail? It seems obvious that if the TAS SS 2006 presentation was presented to an informed Objective-ish audience -- who would not need introduction to terms and concepts from Rand's corpus -- if you revise it to appeal to a wider audience, a fair bit of perhaps tedious explanation would be necessary, along with those things that a oral presentation can slough over (cites, references, quotes and attributions). That is if you wish to retain your references to Rand works, and to retain the 'lessons' of Objectivism as a central spine on which to hang your observations and conclusions. (I think the most tantalizing thing you could do while this is in process is to post the conclusion or concluding paragraph!)

What is in your favour (in terms of good final product) are three things, I would say:

1. You enjoy writing (in and of itself**)
   
2. You have long experience in discussion (so you will know which 'standard' questions will be in the mind of both informed and uninformed readers; you can therefore anticipate and answer them efficiently, making the essay better)
   
3. You have many contacts inside and outside the Objective-ish streams to help you (in other words, you can contact trusted folks 'backstage' to advise ...)
   

Phil, as for not posting here, I have a couple of suggestion that may be useful for you. If there are some people here that do not impress you with their reactions, use the blocking filter. With a few clicks of the mouse, they are gone.

Now, for an online publication, I recommend that you start your own place where you can better control any discussion. The possibility exists to post your article on a Phil Coates blog here on OL, and to be your own 'moderator.' This means you can exclude comments, moderate comments, restrict comments and edit comments. You can exclude your Block list, even.

________________

** It is my conviction that committed writers consciously or unconsciously write for themselves. For me, the pleasures have already been listed, but I should add the pleasure that comes from putting my best thoughts forward to the best of my ability.

Phil, you want to put your best thoughts forward -- I believe that you must first satisfy yourself, and thus of course, be your own harshest critic. In and of itself, long before your article takes its final shape in public, you will have pleased yourself first. As with a committed craftsman in another field, there is pleasure in simply producing an item that meets the high standards imposed by the craftsman's own integrity and pride. He or she is proud of the item (whether a piece of beautiful, functional furniture, a dream cake, a dwelling, a machine, or other work).

So, ignore those who you believe troll you and heckle you to no purpose, write like a mad driven fiend with only weeks to live, use your extensive trusted contacts offlist to advise you and help you shape the great presentation into a great article.

In other words, Fuck Your 'Enemies' -- as long as you are here, there will be 'the usual suspects,' and you can only control your own behaviour.

(all this advice, unsoliticed as it is, can be ignored by you Phil. However, remember that I wrote it first for myself, secondly for you, and thirdly for THEM)

-- two final seemingly pointless and somewhat confusing suggestions. I want you to compare and contrast. I want you (only for your own edification) to compare and contrast your forthcoming article with another article by a writer whom you admire on this list). Do a frank, objective evaluation at your own leisure and keep it to yourself.

The other suggestion. Check your ratio of personal messages to public messages. Mine is 1,046 public messages (not counting blog posts) and 775 personal messages. Social metaphysics? Slavish ass-kissing? Where I let down the mask and bitch ferociously and unkindly? Brief 'thanks' messages to new posters, Kudo notes to regulars? Lengthy discussions born on-list and puzzled over in confidence?

That final compare and contrast is best left in your head, of course. Nobody needs to know how you exploit your personal messenger (and I suspect you do not actually enjoy the personal messager), but it can help you. You know who your friends and supporters are. You know who you can count on not to bitch you out. You know that you can be a charming, self-deprecating regular guy in private exchanges (as well as an Angry Bitch Gossip Monster like me). You can use the tools should you wish to use them to get closer to your goals ...

-- I think (speculate/guess/hypothesize) that you are your own best friend. You trust yourself and your own judgment better than you trust any other person. I speculate that your shortlist of trusted Objective-ish friends is much smaller that it should be -- in other words, trusting a little bit more would pay you dividends richly.

[Philip Coates]

> obviously posting the bullet points would be as dull as me posting bullet points. Dull Like reading someone's notes Dull dull dull [post 27]

William, I understand your trepidation, but my 'bullets' are often complete thoughts or closer to an outline than typical 'bullets'. I like to think they'd provide some new ideas for the reader. For example, here's what i used as a starting point in my local oist group talk:

role models

+ child's room/dorm room

++ usually something on the wall -music -sports, -physicist, -rebellion.

++ rock star/band ... emotional

+++ why put on wall? ..look up to, pattern lives after: constantly physically see,

+++ why taken down? ..i) outgrow the particular, ii) deconstructed

+++ but we need "posters" (in our lives)

And here's a later bullet + subpoint - it's more like a complete thought (that i had considerably more to say on) than a typical bullet:

+ problem w fictional: abstract and distant / not a lot of "lines" or fleshing out / not real / so can't see physically, fully concrete, "in sunlight and in shadow" in all of life's exigencies.

++ need real world heroes and role models

[Philip Coates]

> What ideal online or offline publication model do you have in mind, Phil -- if you have thought about that in detail?

I have thought about it in considerable detail. But I'm not really inclined to share it too much at present.

> It seems obvious that if the TAS SS 2006 presentation was presented to an informed Objective-ish audience -- who would not need introduction to terms and concepts from Rand's corpus -- if you revise it to appeal to a wider audience, a fair bit of perhaps tedious explanation would be necessary, along with those things that a oral presentation can slough over (cites, references, quotes and attributions).

Excellent points, William. When I was developing the talk, as well as all my other talks I gave at TAS over time, I was always thinking 'in parallel' of a non-Objectivist context, non-Objectivist examples, so I have huge files, magazine and newspaper clippings, etc. of those. I actually think the introductory material for unfamiliar audiences is some of the most powerful and useful things one can do.

> ...that is if you wish to retain your references to Rand works, and to retain the 'lessons' of Objectivism as a central spine

To a large extent I don't.

Everyone on the planet* needs benevolence, needs to know how to concretize and not be on the floating abstraction/rationalistic level, what kind of and where to find role models, a universal taxonomy of causality relations - to take the topics of four of my summer seminar talks. And reference to Rand is not only not helpful, she and Objectivism didn't already say the things that most interest me in those four areas, or someone else did before her.

*well, maybe less so on the fourth one...

[Philip Coates]

> You enjoy writing (in and of itself [William]

I really do. It has been enjoyable for me to write (the original) post of many threads where I wanted to take up something new, because I'm working out something in my head.

> I believe that you must first satisfy yourself, and thus of course, be your own harshest critic. In and of itself, long before your article takes its final shape in public, you will have pleased yourself first.

I completely agree.

> write like a mad driven fiend with only weeks to live

Eloquent. It seems like the best writers approach the task with that kind of passionate intensity. You almost have to: the task is that hard.

> long experience in discussion (so you will know which 'standard' questions will be in the mind of both informed and uninformed readers

Having been a teacher and addressing a wide range of audiences has been the best thing I've ever done. An order of magnitude more so than anything done with or for Objectivists.

> You have many contacts inside and outside the Objective-ish streams to help you (in other words, you can contact trusted folks 'backstage' to advise ...)

I'm actually rather leery of that being misguiding. I don't find that world is very successful in communicating with the wider world. I'm currently reading the Zinsser book (and have read many writing and oral communication books) and find them more useful . Rand's two books in this area have a lot of good points, but don't tell me much I hadn't already internalized.

[George H. Smith]

A) This is my favourite thread since I last posted. I like it for these reasons:

1. Phil started the thread (it usually means ideas are being test-marketed)
   
2. Phil seemed to be asking for help from his peers, sincerely and honestly seeking help
   
3. Phil doesn't know if Nathaniel Branden's written works (he mentioned books) are worth the trouble of finishing, and has some stipulations (fair!) that recommendations for the works include quotes, and be structured like a review.
   
4. Phil seems sincerely interested in finding out if Nathaniel Branden is worth reading.
   
5. He is not kidding. He would like to cut to the chase and read the very best reasoned and reasonable, recommendations. He mentioned the folks he would be happy to read if they wrote such a thing.
   
6. There may have been a concealed offer, or a hidden contract (this is most intriguing) ... it seems to me that if You The Reader do this professional job of touting specific Branden works, then He The Teacher would give you something back in exchange for your labours.
   

Thus far I have steered clear of this pointless thread. If Phil was really interested in what OLers regard as NB's best and/or most original points, then he could have posed the question simply, as I have here, without all the extraneous garbage. Moreover, if Phil is as well-schooled in O'ism as he claims to be, then he has surely read enough of NB's books and articles without needing assistance of a reviewer to act as a guide, in effect. NB is a clear writer and not difficult to understand, so if there are some of his books that Phil has not read (or cannot seem to finish), he could easily skim them for material of interest.

Phil is playing some kind of game with this thread, and I'm not curious enough to figure out what it is.

Ghs

[caroljane]

> I believe that you must first satisfy yourself, and thus of course, be your own harshest critic. In and of itself, long before your article takes its final shape in public, you will have pleased yourself first.

It seems like the best writers approach the task with that kind of passionate intensity.

Having been a teacher and addressing a wide range of audiences has been the best thing I've ever done. An order of magnitude more so than anything done with or for Objectivists.

I'm actually rather leery of that being misguiding. I don't find that world is very successful in communicating with the wider world. I'm currently reading the Zinsser book (and have read many writing and oral communication books) and find them more useful . Rand's two books in this area have a lot of good points, but don't tell me much I hadn't already internalized.

As Baal recently reminded us, the worst are also full of passionate intensity.

"That world" I think WSS meant to be your friends. They will not misguide you intentionally. I have not read Zinsser or any communication books, but I have read Rand in this area, and I think she has misguided many good writers

[Brant Gaede]

A) This is my favourite thread since I last posted. I like it for these reasons:

1. Phil started the thread (it usually means ideas are being test-marketed)
   
2. Phil seemed to be asking for help from his peers, sincerely and honestly seeking help
   
3. Phil doesn't know if Nathaniel Branden's written works (he mentioned books) are worth the trouble of finishing, and has some stipulations (fair!) that recommendations for the works include quotes, and be structured like a review.
   
4. Phil seems sincerely interested in finding out if Nathaniel Branden is worth reading.
   
5. He is not kidding. He would like to cut to the chase and read the very best reasoned and reasonable, recommendations. He mentioned the folks he would be happy to read if they wrote such a thing.
   
6. There may have been a concealed offer, or a hidden contract (this is most intriguing) ... it seems to me that if You The Reader do this professional job of touting specific Branden works, then He The Teacher would give you something back in exchange for your labours.
   

Thus far I have steered clear of this pointless thread. If Phil was really interested in what OLers regard as NB's best and/or most original points, then he could have posed the question simply, as I have here, without all the extraneous garbage. Moreover, if Phil is as well-schooled in O'ism as he claims to be, then he has surely read enough of NB's books and articles without needing assistance of a reviewer to act as a guide, in effect. NB is a clear writer and not difficult to understand, so if there are some of his books that Phil has not read (or cannot seem to finish), he could easily skim them for material of interest.

Phil is playing some kind of game with this thread, and I'm not curious enough to figure out what it is.

Ghs

And Bill with Phil.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm currently reading the Zinsser book...

Phil,

That is the best of the best. (I refer to On Writing Well, not his other books.)

You are not in good hands with Zinsser. You are in great ones.

I even think his book is better than Elements of Style by Strunk and White. If not better, at the very least as good.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> he has surely read enough of NB's books and articles without needing assistance of a reviewer [GHS]

You have no reason to cynically deny what I'm telling you.

[George H. Smith]

> he has surely read enough of NB's books and articles without needing assistance of a reviewer [GHS] You have no reason to cynically deny what I'm telling you.

Okay, so let me ask you this: What books, if any, by Nathaniel Branden have you read?

Ghs

[william.scherk]

If Phil was really interested in what OLers regard as NB's best and/or most original points, then he could have posed the question simply, as I have here, without all the extraneous garbage. Moreover, if Phil is as well-schooled in O'ism as he claims to be, then he has surely read enough of NB's books and articles without needing assistance of a reviewer to act as a guide, in effect.

Yes, Phil made it clear that he hoped for professional review-style guide to Branden by someone like you, Boydstun, Bissell, etcetera. But he did not first sniff out the fact that it could appear A Staggering Irony for him to ask for this kind of labour while dodging it himself, that it could sound like another (um, no thanks, Mrs Grundy) assignment, another challenge to the Degenerates, another pop-quiz, another inept opening gambit.

He made what I thought to be an embarrassing blunder -- in tone, tenor, register, angle of attack. Almost as if designed to repulse what he ostensibly wanted: the meat, pith of Branden, graciously and professionally delivered to his screen at his request.

"I realize I may have been unfair to Branden, and admit again that I am ill-read in his work. I acknowledge the irony of styling myself an Upperclassman of Objectivism, able to teach Objectivism to Objectivists while asking for your best effort to help me out here. But, can I ask for some tips on getting into Branden? The two books I started and couldn't finish were X and Y. As discussion elaborates, I have a few more questions. I will accept a few gibes, but I am serious."

How exactly did George ask for help in breaking ground in his reading? And how did Phil? And how did each gambit deliver the goods?

Did he say something adroit like, "Guess what? I've been to Nathaniel Branden's website, and left a message: "Dear Dr Branden, I am a long-time Objectivist who came to New York after you had left for California. I am embarrassed to say that I need help in approaching the body of your work. Where would you advise me to start?"?

What makes these kinds of self-stymied efforts, self-thwarting plays inexpressibly sad for me is the chasm between tactic and goal. A putative strategy of "getting what I want" is marred by "blocking my own efforts, inadvertently by social clumsiness or via malice/vengence."

How many times have we seen or watched or listened to or read drama or comedy or tragedy and seen a real person or a fictional person stand in his or her own way? How many times do we see it in our own families and workplaces and social world, without being able to avert an own goal by someone we have come to care about? How often do we accept the advice of a friend that we are thwarting our own goals?

+ child's room/dorm room

++ usually something on the wall -music -sports, -physicist, -rebellion.

++ rock star/band ... emotional

+++ why put on wall? ..look up to, pattern lives after: constantly physically see,

+++ why taken down? ..i) outgrow the particular, ii) deconstructed

+++ but we need "posters" (in our lives)

+ problem w fictional: abstract and distant / not a lot of "lines" or fleshing out / not real / so can't see physically, fully concrete, "in sunlight and in shadow" in all of life's exigencies.

++ need real world heroes and role models

Phil, my own notes are far more interesting and yet still dull for any other reader than myself -- and I write my notes mostly in sentences, as I think, or work directly from an outline for more formal and lengthy pieces. If you are suggesting these even approach Botched Ukrainian Powerpoint titles in my value rankings, I think not.

> ...that is if you wish to retain your references to Rand works, and to retain the 'lessons' of Objectivism as a central spine

To a large extent I don't.

That is unfortunate, because your zeal for and knowledge of Objectivism could help you Spread Objectivism. It is a good hook, I think, a fine spine, a great jumping-off point. You could kill two birds, maybe three, with one stone. Get published (even if self-published or web-published) again, give your fans something to valorize, get Objectivism spreading, and complete a personally-satisfying task for which you believe you are well-qualified.

It has been enjoyable for me to write (the original) post of many threads where I wanted to take up something new, because I'm working out something in my head.

[ . . . ]

Having been a teacher and addressing a wide range of audiences has been the best thing I've ever done.

But you see the irony, Phil? You must. It is that you would think that notes might be interesting to us ... or any reader ... while you rather frostily specify that only the format and professionalism of a written review-style response will attract your interest, when you tell me now that you enjoy posts that are 'working out something in your head.' I am interested in the result of your workout, Phil, just as you are interested in the result of the work of others (the Grundy-esque homework assignment on Branden)!

Answer me honestly, please. Do you not see the irony even after Jonathan has pounded it home with his invitation to me to go get his snacks?

Having been a teacher and addressing a wide range of audiences is excellent practice at teaching and addressing wide ranges of audiences, but I was talking about your essay and the help you can get from your trusted friends and respected writers.

Phil, honestly, I was trying to turn you around a bit, get you going on something productive, exciting, already remarkably good and supported on this site, get you to fuck your enemies and turn to your friends ...

> You have many contacts inside and outside the Objective-ish streams to help you (in other words, you can contact trusted folks 'backstage' to advise ...)

I'm actually rather leery of that being misguiding. I don't find that world is very successful in communicating with the wider world.

Hmmm. Let's try this again. You have many contacts INSIDE AND OUTSIDE objective-ish streams to help you. Do you trust anyone to help you? Please Phil, don't give up on yourself and your dreams to fear. As Carol pointed out, THE WORLD I was referring was the world of your trusted contacts, in private. "They will not misguide you intentionally." These are the people you trust after your many years in the movement. You know who they are and their value to you.

Phil is playing some kind of game with this thread, and I'm not curious enough to figure out what it is.

And Bill with Phil.

Yes. But the games are not quite the same, I don't think. My game is my usual game, Brant. Trying different ways and means of helping myself and others closer to practical truth. Entertainingly if possible. Savagely if necessary. With kindness if it might be effective.

The thing is, I always feel like a winner in my game, and I do not think this is true for Phil, and it saddens me.

[caroljane]

Masterly, Baas. Got the chips, want anything else? Poutine is on special

[william.scherk]

Masterly, Baas. Got the chips, want anything else? Poutine is on special

Let's go Dutch. If you be my Boydstun, I will be your Dragonfly ... I am a great fan of Fusion Poutine and -- being Canadian -- enjoy cooperative (if not collective) dining.

Edited December 31, 2011 by william.scherk

[Dennis Hardin]

In a group therapy session back in the 70s, Branden was talking about how we do not owe respect to people who do not show respect to us. He described the way a good friend of his, the late psychologist Haim Ginott, responded to someone at a party who told him something very much like the following:

“Dr. Ginott, I've started to read your books more than once and stopped. I haven’t found you to be an original or profound thinker.” [This is basically how Phil started this thread.]

Branden overheard the exchange. The man had displayed no respect whatever for Ginott’s work or his numerous accomplishments. With a broad grin, Branden told the group how delighted he was with Ginott’s response, because it was exactly what the person deserved.

Ginott had said to the man, very simply:

“Go away from me.”

[Philip Coates]

> Okay, so let me ask you this: What books, if any, by Nathaniel Branden have you read? [GHS]

Best to read the thread. This was how I started in post #1 -- it was actually the very first statement on the thread:

" I've started to read some of Branden's books more than once and stopped: I wasn't finding him to be an original or profound thinker or, where he was saying important things, to be saying more than he already said when he was associated with Rand. (In addition, yes she had faults, but the times when he was vicious or unfair to her when he was the person whose actions were reprehensible, also turned me off. Someone would have to be enormously brilliant for me to overcome my distaste in reading him - especially if I find others in positive psychology or cognitive psychology saying what he does as well.

Also, in my initial readings, IIRC, he seemed to think everything centers around self-esteem or reduces too much to self-esteem issues:

It doesn't. "

[Philip Coates]

> “Dr. Ginott, I've started to read your books more than once and stopped. I haven’t found you to be an original or profound thinker.” [This is basically how Phil started this thread.]

Not at all, Dennis. There is a big difference between walking up to a man and saying I don't like your work and then trying to have a conversation -with him- and saying on a board **whose purpose is discussion** that you don't like a certain thinker's work. Especially if you give your reasons.

Please tell me you're able to see the difference:

Why the first is foolish and the second is appropriate intellectual discussion.

[George H. Smith]

> Okay, so let me ask you this: What books, if any, by Nathaniel Branden have you read? [GHS]

Best to read the thread. This was how I started in post #1 -- it was actually the very first statement on the thread:

" I've started to read some of Branden's books more than once and stopped: I wasn't finding him to be an original or profound thinker or, where he was saying important things, to be saying more than he already said when he was associated with Rand. (In addition, yes she had faults, but the times when he was vicious or unfair to her when he was the person whose actions were reprehensible, also turned me off. Someone would have to be enormously brilliant for me to overcome my distaste in reading him - especially if I find others in positive psychology or cognitive psychology saying what he does as well.

Also, in my initial readings, IIRC, he seemed to think everything centers around self-esteem or reduces too much to self-esteem issues:

It doesn't. "

Thanks for repeating yourself and refusing to answer a simple question. To say that you "started to read some of Branden's books more than once and stopped" does not mean that you have not read any his books -- if that is what you meant to say.

Let me make this as simple for you as I possibly can. Which books by Branden have you started to read "more than once" and then stopped?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I'm currently reading the Zinsser book...

Phil,

That is the best of the best. (I refer to On Writing Well, not his other books.)

You are not in good hands with Zinsser. You are in great ones.

I even think his book is better than Elements of Style by Strunk and White. If not better, at the very least as good.

Michael

If I had to name a single book that has helped my writing more than any other, it would be The Handbook of Good English (1982), by Edward D. Johnson. Aside from dealing with the usual basics on grammar and punctuation, Johnson discusses many complex sentence structures that frequently confuse even experienced writers. And his debunking of some of the myths perpetuated by Struck and White is refreshing, as illustrated in his section "Don't be afraid of the passive voice." Johnson concludes:

This book is for adults -- and we can forget that "Avoid the passive" rule. The passive voice is respectable, is capable of expressing shades of meaning that the active voice cannot express, and is sometimes more compact and direct than the active voice.

Johnson's discussions of diction and composition, organization, tone, and revision are also excellent. Every serious writer should read this book. I typically reread parts of it every year or two.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

If Phil was really interested in what OLers regard as NB's best and/or most original points, then he could have posed the question simply, as I have here, without all the extraneous garbage. Moreover, if Phil is as well-schooled in O'ism as he claims to be, then he has surely read enough of NB's books and articles without needing assistance of a reviewer to act as a guide, in effect.

Yes, Phil made it clear that he hoped for professional review-style guide to Branden by someone like you, Boydstun, Bissell, etcetera. But he did not first sniff out the fact that it could appear A Staggering Irony for him to ask for this kind of labour while dodging it himself, that it could sound like another (um, no thanks, Mrs Grundy) assignment, another challenge to the Degenerates, another pop-quiz, another inept opening gambit.

He made what I thought to be an embarrassing blunder -- in tone, tenor, register, angle of attack. Almost as if designed to repulse what he ostensibly wanted: the meat, pith of Branden, graciously and professionally delivered to his screen at his request.

"I realize I may have been unfair to Branden, and admit again that I am ill-read in his work. I acknowledge the irony of styling myself an Upperclassman of Objectivism, able to teach Objectivism to Objectivists while asking for your best effort to help me out here. But, can I ask for some tips on getting into Branden? The two books I started and couldn't finish were X and Y. As discussion elaborates, I have a few more questions. I will accept a few gibes, but I am serious."

How exactly did George ask for help in breaking ground in his reading? And how did Phil? And how did each gambit deliver the goods?

Did he say something adroit like, "Guess what? I've been to Nathaniel Branden's website, and left a message: "Dear Dr Branden, I am a long-time Objectivist who came to New York after you had left for California. I am embarrassed to say that I need help in approaching the body of your work. Where would you advise me to start?"?

What makes these kinds of self-stymied efforts, self-thwarting plays inexpressibly sad for me is the chasm between tactic and goal. A putative strategy of "getting what I want" is marred by "blocking my own efforts, inadvertently by social clumsiness or via malice/vengence."

How many times have we seen or watched or listened to or read drama or comedy or tragedy and seen a real person or a fictional person stand in his or her own way? How many times do we see it in our own families and workplaces and social world, without being able to avert an own goal by someone we have come to care about? How often do we accept the advice of a friend that we are thwarting our own goals?

+ child's room/dorm room

++ usually something on the wall -music -sports, -physicist, -rebellion.

++ rock star/band ... emotional

+++ why put on wall? ..look up to, pattern lives after: constantly physically see,

+++ why taken down? ..i) outgrow the particular, ii) deconstructed

+++ but we need "posters" (in our lives)

+ problem w fictional: abstract and distant / not a lot of "lines" or fleshing out / not real / so can't see physically, fully concrete, "in sunlight and in shadow" in all of life's exigencies.

++ need real world heroes and role models

Phil, my own notes are far more interesting and yet still dull for any other reader than myself -- and I write my notes mostly in sentences, as I think, or work directly from an outline for more formal and lengthy pieces. If you are suggesting these even approach Botched Ukrainian Powerpoint titles in my value rankings, I think not.

> ...that is if you wish to retain your references to Rand works, and to retain the 'lessons' of Objectivism as a central spine

To a large extent I don't.

That is unfortunate, because your zeal for and knowledge of Objectivism could help you Spread Objectivism. It is a good hook, I think, a fine spine, a great jumping-off point. You could kill two birds, maybe three, with one stone. Get published (even if self-published or web-published) again, give your fans something to valorize, get Objectivism spreading, and complete a personally-satisfying task for which you believe you are well-qualified.

It has been enjoyable for me to write (the original) post of many threads where I wanted to take up something new, because I'm working out something in my head.

[ . . . ]

Having been a teacher and addressing a wide range of audiences has been the best thing I've ever done.

But you see the irony, Phil? You must. It is that you would think that notes might be interesting to us ... or any reader ... while you rather frostily specify that only the format and professionalism of a written review-style response will attract your interest, when you tell me now that you enjoy posts that are 'working out something in your head.' I am interested in the result of your workout, Phil, just as you are interested in the result of the work of others (the Grundy-esque homework assignment on Branden)!

Answer me honestly, please. Do you not see the irony even after Jonathan has pounded it home with his invitation to me to go get his snacks?

Having been a teacher and addressing a wide range of audiences is excellent practice at teaching and addressing wide ranges of audiences, but I was talking about your essay and the help you can get from your trusted friends and respected writers.

Phil, honestly, I was trying to turn you around a bit, get you going on something productive, exciting, already remarkably good and supported on this site, get you to fuck your enemies and turn to your friends ...

> You have many contacts inside and outside the Objective-ish streams to help you (in other words, you can contact trusted folks 'backstage' to advise ...)

I'm actually rather leery of that being misguiding. I don't find that world is very successful in communicating with the wider world.

Hmmm. Let's try this again. You have many contacts INSIDE AND OUTSIDE objective-ish streams to help you. Do you trust anyone to help you? Please Phil, don't give up on yourself and your dreams to fear. As Carol pointed out, THE WORLD I was referring was the world of your trusted contacts, in private. "They will not misguide you intentionally." These are the people you trust after your many years in the movement. You know who they are and their value to you.

Phil is playing some kind of game with this thread, and I'm not curious enough to figure out what it is.

And Bill with Phil.

Yes. But the games are not quite the same, I don't think. My game is my usual game, Brant. Trying different ways and means of helping myself and others closer to practical truth. Entertainingly if possible. Savagely if necessary. With kindness if it might be effective.

The thing is, I always feel like a winner in my game, and I do not think this is true for Phil, and it saddens me.

Phil is a teacher, a job for which he is basically unqualified for. He once wrote that he could understand a blackboard of equations at a glance but not know the sub-verbal signals a woman might be sending him and had to spend hours figuring it out. How does such a person address and deal with other people in a teaching situation? How can he properly interact? He's like the blindfolded man trying to pin the tail on the donkey that way.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

In a group therapy session back in the 70s, Branden was talking about how we do not owe respect to people who do not show respect to us. He described the way a good friend of his, the late psychologist Haim Ginott, responded to someone at a party who told him something very much like the following:

“Dr. Ginott, I've started to read your books more than once and stopped. I haven’t found you to be an original or profound thinker.” [This is basically how Phil started this thread.]

Branden overheard the exchange. The man had displayed no respect whatever for Ginott’s work or his numerous accomplishments. With a broad grin, Branden told the group how delighted he was with Ginott’s response, because it was exactly what the person deserved.

Ginott had said to the man, very simply:

“Go away from me.”

Nathaniel told a lot of Ginott stories back then. That man died much too young.

--Brant

that quote was a good one I hadn't heard before--another arrow in my quiver, not that I'm likely to need it except to pass it on to someone who might

[Philip Coates]

> Let me make this as simple for you as I possibly can. Which books by Branden have you started to read "more than once" and then stopped? [GHS]

Let me make this as simple for you as possible:

You started out hostile, suspicious, and questioning my honesty and I don't want to answer your questions or have a discussion on this with you.

[Brant Gaede]

> Okay, so let me ask you this: What books, if any, by Nathaniel Branden have you read? [GHS]

Best to read the thread. This was how I started in post #1 -- it was actually the very first statement on the thread:

" I've started to read some of Branden's books more than once and stopped: I wasn't finding him to be an original or profound thinker or, where he was saying important things, to be saying more than he already said when he was associated with Rand. (In addition, yes she had faults, but the times when he was vicious or unfair to her when he was the person whose actions were reprehensible, also turned me off. Someone would have to be enormously brilliant for me to overcome my distaste in reading him - especially if I find others in positive psychology or cognitive psychology saying what he does as well.

Also, in my initial readings, IIRC, he seemed to think everything centers around self-esteem or reduces too much to self-esteem issues:

It doesn't. "

How do you know?

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> He once wrote that he could understand a blackboard of equations at a glance but not know the sub-verbal signals a woman might be sending him and had to spend hours figuring it out. How does such a person address and deal with other people in a teaching situation? [brant]

Were you stupid enough to assume that that was still the case, that I hadn't learned anything since age 17 or 21?

[George H. Smith]

Phil,

I do not have the time for a detailed review of Branden's work. However, I think Branden's most valuable strain of thought has been to focus on something Rand did not write about: developmental psychology. Branden's thrust in stressing that personal growth can be significantly aided by a set of personal practices that stress awareness and acceptance of emotions is an important insight and a significantly different take on self esteem than that advanced by Rand.

My favorite Branden books are Psychology of Romantic Love and The Six Pillars of Self Esteem. The latter is important because it presents the definitive outline of Branden's theory of self-development. He presents the pillars as self acceptance, self-assertiveness,purposeful living, self-responsibility, living consciously and personal integrity. I think the major areas in which Branden expands on Rand are self-acceptance and living consciously. In Psychology of Romantic Love, you can find Branden's most complete discussion of psychological visibility.

I think The Psychology of Self Esteem is Branden's weakest book on psychology, but this weakness includes problems that are also endemic in Rand. In general, I think Branden presents an overly simplistic model of anxiety. A complete treatment of anxiety would include biological as well as psychological determinants of well-being. However, this book must be evaluated by the state of medical knowledge at the time it was written. In the case of clinical anxiety, medical knowledge was still fairly rudimentary.

Sorry for the brief response to your initial call for comment, but this will have to suffice for now.

Jim

Around eight years ago I toyed with the idea of writing a book titled Happiness in a Godless World. I planned to include a chapter on NB's ideas but had not kept current with his work, so I wrote to Nathaniel asking him to recommend some later books that deal with theory, and not simply with "practical" matters and therapeutic techniques. Nathaniel kindly sent me copies of three books: The Six Pilllars of Self-Esteem (1994), Taking Responsibility: Self Reliance and the Accountable Life (1996), and The Art of Living Consciously. (1997).

Although I recommend all three books, my favorite is Taking Responsibility, which contains a succinct overview of Branden's views on philosophical psychology. If Phil is seriously interested in Branden's later ideas, he should read that book.

Ghs