More Collectivism from LP & ARI

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There was a whole spate of reminiscences of Rand by people who knew her which followed PAR's publication, but I'm not sure how many of these had already appeared by 1987.

Ellen,

Where on earth can I get my hands on a list and possibly the texts? This is important information to centralize.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here is a story by Robert Bidinotto from an old SoloHQ post dated March 21, 2005 concerning the announcement by Peikoff of the affair at The Ford Hall Forum.

[....]

Then -- FINALLY -- at a Ford Hall Forum speech which I attended, Peikoff revealed during the Q&A that he had recently "discovered" among Ayn Rand's personal papers some letters that confirmed that, Yes, there had been an affair.

One hell of a story from an eye-witness.

Michael

Yes; but we still don't know the year. Was it before Judgment Day was published? (That appeared in '89.) Also, other accounts I've heard of Peikoff's revelation have said that he said it was Cynthia who was going through AR's papers and found the smoking gun. Not that it matters which of the two it was. Just interesting re differences in the way an eye-witnessed event gets reported by different eye witnesses.

I've wondered if he ever considered destroying the evidence. (I expect it was a terrible, terrible jolt when he found that there really had been an affair.)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

There was a whole spate of reminiscences of Rand by people who knew her which followed PAR's publication, but I'm not sure how many of these had already appeared by 1987.

Ellen,

Where on earth can I get my hands on a list and possibly the texts? This is important information to centralize.

Michael

Maybe Richard Lawrence would have a list. I have some of the texts, but not all of them.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes; but we still don't know the year. Was it before Judgment Day was published? (That appeared in '89.) Also, other accounts I've heard of Peikoff's revelation have said that he said it was Cynthia who was going through AR's papers and found the smoking gun. Not that it matters which of the two it was. Just interesting re differences in the way an eye-witnessed event gets reported by different eye witnesses.

Ellen,

Apparently it was 1987 according to another eyewitness. Here is a part of post by Michelle Cohen of October 29, 2004 on the old SoloHQ:

I was in the audience at the Ford Hall Forum when Peikoff admitted that Cynthia looked through Rand's papers and found her journal notes about the affair. The year was 1987, not 1986 as I thought...

In a post prior to that one, she claimed that Peikoff stated that he had been looking through Rand's papers since 1982 and found the journal notes. Then she corrected herself.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

I want to think everyone for answering my question. At the time of the Break between Ayn Rand and the Brandens there was always a total deniel of any suggestion she had actually an affair with Nathaniel. I have the Gilda Radner character on Saturday Night Live running through my mind. The one who always ended with the phrase "never mind". I get the idea from Robert's post that's what the ARI people were saying. I remember that in " Sense of Life" there is a suggestion that I remember that Frank could not met all of Ayn's sexual needs. That is offered as a suggestion for the affair.

[zantonavitch]

As a separate insert for THE INTELLECTUAL

ACTIVIST August 20, 1986 issue, Peter Schwartz wrote a two-page letter

"with reluctance, in response to the letters asking about Barbara

Branden's book, THE PASSION OF AYN RAND."

Barbara

I'd love to read a copy of this, if anyone can provide it. Everyone needs to bear in mind that ARI is continually in the process of destroying evidence and rewriting history.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've wondered if he ever considered destroying the evidence. (I expect it was a terrible, terrible jolt when he found that there really had been an affair.)

Ellen,

Let me ask a simple question. Is it reasonable to suppose that Peikoff inherited the material in 1982 and never even flipped through Rand's papers over a period of 5 years? Is it reasonable to suppose that Peikoff would not be curious about Rand?

Did he ever go into print denying the affair? I can't find anything at all. There are only stories about what people said. I can't even find anything where someone quotes him denying the affair.

Hmmmmmmmm...

Michael

[Victor Pross]

I remember Peikoff stated that he didn’t read either Barbara’s bio book or NB’s memoir claiming them to be “arbitrary”—and, I admit, I never knew what he meant by that. Really, I must also admit that I always got the distinct impression Peikoff simply didn’t want to believe that the affair took place. It was as if it stung a more conservative part of him. Hey, I don’t know what the big deal was, I hardly ever thought of the affair as food for scandal. It was all agreed upon and no deception took place. Peikoff seemed to regard the affair as a potential source of embarrassment--I believe--but it never alternated by love for Ayn Rand one iota.

Edited November 3, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

I've wondered if he ever considered destroying the evidence. (I expect it was a terrible, terrible jolt when he found that there really had been an affair.)

Ellen,

Let me ask a simple question. Is it reasonable to suppose that Peikoff inherited the material in 1982 and never even flipped through Rand's papers over a period of 5 years? Is it reasonable to suppose that Peikoff would not be curious about Rand?

Did he ever go into print denying the affair? I can't find anything at all. There are only stories about what people said. I can't even find anything where someone quotes him denying the affair.

Hmmmmmmmm...

Michael

Michael, are you seriously asking me if I think it's reasonable to suppose he didn't look, or is the question rhetorical? Whenever he found out about it, whether before or after BB's book was published, I expect it was a terrible, terrible jolt. It didn't "fit" his view of her. Besides...how do you suppose it might have made him feel to become aware of how much she hadn't told him?

I don't know of any quote in which he denies the affair. There is, however, a quote from Joan Blumenthal reported by Walker in which Joan expresses wonderment at Leonard's blindness and says something about "those who won't see." (I'll go look for the quote.)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

The comment from Joan about LP's disbelief is quoted on pg. 192 of Walker:

"Adds Joan Blumenthal, 'I constantly thought from the time of the Break that it was impossible that Leonard didn't know. And yet...if you won't know, you won't know."

If Walker is quoting Joan accurately (I think that at least most of his quotes probably are accurate, though how he puts them together, and what he leaves out, can add up to something not accurate), then Leonard resisted considering the idea. I myself would take Joan's assessment as having high probability of being correct, since I considered her a shrewd observer. (E.g., she suspected the sexual aspect of NB's and Ayn's relationship before the break, when others in the Collective and "Junior" Collective didn't suspect.)

Ellen

___

[Chris Grieb]

I remember a statement that Branden made to Rand When they were together that Leonard believed Rand was a virgin. Even if this was in jest it suggests among other things that Leonard had mind-body dicotemy. I think Leonard just did want to think about the idea of Miss Rand having a affair.

[Mike Hardy]

What year did Peikoff reveal that Ayn Rand had had an affair with Nathaniel Branden?

I first heard of the Affair in 1977, and I had no idea that made me

one of apparently very few, not including even Leonard Peikoff.

An alumnus of Vassar College told me that he'd heard it from a

philsophy professor there named David Kelley. He included the

part about the two spouses' consent. -- Mike Hardy

[Reidy]

I first heard it as gossip in 69 or 70. It was too weird to believe, so I didn't.

Peter

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wondered if she was sexually attracted to him the first time I read Atlas (June '61), because of (a) the specifics of her views on sex, combined with (b ) the dual dedication, the excessive glowingness of her description of NB in the Postscript, and the bit about his being her "intellectual heir," a designation which I found "weird." I became convinced that at minimum she was romantically interested in him when I read "To Whom It May Concern," but I never felt sure as to whether or not there had actually been an affair until 1978. At that time, in a conversation I was having with Allan Blumenthal, he made a remark which I interpreted as confirmative that the romantic interest had gone farther than a desire on her part. Meanwhile, earlier in the '70s (I don't remember the exact year) Dave Dawson had told me that he was sure there had been an active affair, but the reasons he gave didn't seem to me quite enough for me to feel sure. What I used to be shocked by during the years when I knew a lot of New York City Objectivists was by how many of them seemed horrified at the idea. I had a lot of trouble understanding why they would be horrified -- and still couldn't say even today that I feel entirely unpuzzled by their response.

Ellen

___

[Rich Engle]

You know, if this were about anyone other than those two, none of this would mean squat. It was an affair-- they wanted each other.

Affairs often involve people finding themselves in a relationship, a general life situation, where they have satisfied a great deal of their needs, but not the ones involving what NB calls "psychological visibility." Read the essay Ciro posted-- NB's Valuing Love and Relationships. He knows an awful lot about this, and for good reason.

Rand needed something, NB needed something that they both weren't getting, and found (or thought they found) that in one another.

The way they attempted to satisfy those needs was under inconvenient, risky, high-profile circumstances, even with supposed buy-in from the spouses.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Going back to Peikoff's initial announcement, I cannot resist the juxtaposition of two quotes, one from him and one from Ayn Rand.

From Peikoff's website (my bold on the word "immoral"):

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad."

(...)

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man's actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

The next quote is from Rand, "The Argument from Intimidation" from The Virtue of Selfishness.

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement with one's undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure. Since it is particularly prevalent in today's culture and is going to grow more so in the next few months, one would do well to learn to identify it and be on guard against it.

This method bears a certain resemblance to the fallacy ad hominem, and comes from the same psychological root, but is different in essential meaning. The ad hominem fallacy consists of attempting to refute an argument by impeaching the character of its proponent. Example: "Candidate X is immoral, therefore his argument is false."

But the psychological pressure method consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false."

In the first case, Candidate X's immorality (real or invented) is offered as proof of the falsehood of his argument. In the second case, the falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

Peikoff's quote is a very good example of this. To him, those who do not vote Republican both act immorally and do not understand Objectivism. He "forestalls debate and extorts his opponent's agreement with his undiscussed notions."

As regards those "undiscussed notions," I fail to see any values except choosing a weak killer over a strong killer (which is an arbitrary identification thrown in anyway) or arguments of ideas in his presentation. I only see opinions that bear little resemblance to the facts I have observed, and a clearly stated task: "to topple the Republicans from power."

Pure intimidation.

Michael

[zantonavitch]

Michael: Bull's-eye!

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Of course, Leonard Peikoff is using an argument from intimidation.

But amongst the Orthodoxy, there is an abiding faith that only opponents of their views ever resort to such tactics.

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

But amongst the Orthodoxy, there is an abiding faith that only opponents of their views ever resort to such tactics.

That used to seem to be the case, but one can't claim that anymore. E.g., Tracinski already essentially accused Peikoff of argument from intimidation ("intellectual bullying" if I recall).

Shayne

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, and that tickles me.

There is no doubt though-- it is one of the things always on top in their toolbag. There with the other supposed big guns. The Evasion Gun. The Dishonest Gun. It all gets spit out like cult-speak, which I love because it weakens each time.

[Chris Grieb]

This issue seems to be causing a fluttering among the ARI dovecotes. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

[Reidy]

I predict that eventually Peikoff will eventually be left alone at ARI, answering the phone, making coffee, administering the database, schmoozing donors and keeping the website current, all the while issuing his famous condemnations.

Peter

[Brendan Hutching]

This issue seems to be causing a fluttering among the ARI dovecotes. It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

Perhaps Peikoff is limbering up for a showdown with some erstwhile allies within ARI. I’m just an observer, but it seems there has been some long-standing tension between Peikoff and his supporters and the likes of Tracinski and Binswanger and their supporters. The election comments read like a thinly-veiled attack on certain people who are refusing to fall into line.

The question is: why Peikoff is launching his attack, and why now? In regard to the latter, I think the timing is fortuitous – people are confused and angry about Iraq, and Peikoff is offering a way of analysing events that claims to cut though a mass of confusing detail.

As to why Peikoff is on the offensive, I have a suspicion that he is using his DIM Hypothesis as a club to isolate and destroy his enemies. After all, he seems to have arrived at his decision to vote Democrat via DIM, and he is also arguing that those who fail to vote Democrat do not understand Objectivism; in which case, one might assume that he regards DIM as an Objectivist principle.

In which case, his move against Tracinski et al is part of a campaign to promote the DIM Hypothesis as part of the philosophy of Objectivism. Not on a par with Rand’s original contribution, of course, but as an application that is true to the method and spirit of Objectivism. If he were to succeed, a failure to accept DIM would be used as evidence that the target does not understand Objectivism, or is not an Objectivist at all.

However, Peikoff seems to be taking a cautious approach, since Tracinski et al own and manage media forums that are independent of ARI, and have fostered their own supporters. Not coincidentally, perhaps, the ARI leadership has recently launched its own in-house magazine, whose contributors just happen to be urging Objectivists to vote Democrat.

I doubt that even Peikoff wants a messy split, but you never know. If he’s convinced that ideas are the driving force of history, perhaps he also believes that a few, very committed and passionate people are sufficient to win the day.

Brendan

[Chris Grieb]

Brendan; Great Post! Peikoff said nothing could be in Objectivism that Ayn Rand did not know about. The DIM hypothesis came into exsistence after Miss Rand's death. Sound like a contradiction to me. Has Yaron Brook said anything about this issue?

[Ross Barlow]

Pardon my provincialism, but I have been out of the orthodox Objectivist loop for a long, long time.

What, briefly, is this DIM hypothesis of Peikoff’s?

(I have never had much interest in Peikoff. He just seemed to come across to me as spiteful, cultish, silly and shrill. These perceived characteristics can be found in abundance anywhere else, including amongst leftist professors and religious zealots. I wonder at the amount of damage he has done to Objectivism through the decades by his mere presence disgusting many people who turn elsewhere.)

-Ross Barlow.