The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism

[Greybird]

I wasn't closely following the wanton smearing of Jim Peron, except from some skirmishes on the Atlantis II list. But from having known Peron for 27 years — back to working with him on his Libertarian campaign for the Illinois Assembly — I knew who was a carper and who was an achiever, and which side was far more likely to be telling the truth.

As for a different matter: Perigo, who adores the imperial U.S. military (which, conveniently, he isn't forced to help pay for), shares its love of an endless stream of acronyms. What the f^@k does "KASS" stand for? Somebody?

Edited May 7, 2007 by Greybird

[Jonathan]

Thanks for the information, MSK. I wasn't aware of how much may have been going on behind the scenes during the Peron ordeal.

After reading about the evidence and testimony against him, I wasn't convinced one way or the other. I remember thinking that Peron, at best, had probably made some pretty naive choices in his past, but that it would be very difficult to prove the accusations against him.

If I recall, there were also hints that there was much more to come -- super, extra-secret, bombshell evidence which would be quite shocking when revealed, but which, unfortunately, apparently never reached the point of being revealed. I remember that The Locke Foundation's website had posted scans of drawings and photos which had allegedly been found in Peron's New Zealand bookstore, and presented them on their site as evidence of his crimes (images which were similar to those which can be found in art and photography books in almost any Barnes and Noble, and which were obviously not disgusting enough to not be posted on The Locke Foundation's website without their being worried about facing charges of posting inappropriate images). Maybe those images were the super, extra-secret, bombshell evidence?

Perhaps there was something more to the accusations against Peron, but I guess we'll never know.

Oh, and Tockin', MSK!

J

[Chris Grieb]

Michael & Jon,

I had heard about Peron controversy but did not know the whole story. Thanks for clearing it up.

Some of these people have so little credibility that I guessed it was no big deal. It's nice to see that confirmed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What the f^@k does "KASS" stand for? Somebody?

Steve,

KASS means "kick ass" and, from what I gather, this came from a phrase in a Perigo speech at a TOC (TAS) conference that more or less went like this: "Kick ass, take names, then kick some more ass" (or something like that).

It's an attempt at a cool way of saying "morally condemn others." The way it plays out in relation to the old guard's manner of moral condemnation is this new type usually includes a large amount of profanity.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Did I miss the parts of Atlas were the heroes talk like drunken sailors. When did it become exceptable to talk that way.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Ellen Stuttle]

Should you venture into any of the present contentious threads over on Solo Passion, [...] [y]ou will read constantly that the ARI supporters "flounced off" like Branden supporters did before, but the forum is open for anyone to post. [....]

Here is the lie. Branden supporters did not "flounce off" when Perigo and Valliant got into bed together (and a little earlier).

Another lie which Linz has repeated in one of the current threads (I think in the "Farewell" one started by J. T. Gagnon) is the claim that "the Brandens" (he speaks of them as a unit in this connection) issued a "fatwa" instructing their friends not to post on SOLO. I believe it's true that Nathaniel had some words with Tibor Machan at one point over Tibor's including SOLO on his distribution list. I know it's true that Tibor eventually discontinued sending material to SOLO after he caught up to reading some of the stuff being said about PARC. But the idea that either Branden commanded friends not to post on SOLO is Linz's fabrication.

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

But the idea that either Branden commanded friends not to post on SOLO is Linz's fabrication.

Yeah. Contrary to Pigero's fantasy, the reason that SOLOP is failing is not because the Brandens (or Diana Hsieh or the ARI) have told people to stay away. It's failing because people see Pigero as an abusive, emotionally unstable asshole.

I enjoyed reading and discussing issues on SOLO back when there were a lot of good, intelligent people with a variety of backgrounds and views. That's what drew me there. None of those people migrated to SOLOP, so I've had no reason to join. To me, visiting the old SOLO was rarely about finding anything of value in anything that Pigero or his New Zealand lackeys had to grunt about (in fact, I think that Pigero may have only responded once or twice with actual substance -- rather than with mere name-calling and attempts at intimidation as a substitute for argument -- to anything I wrote in the years that I had been visiting his sites).

I think that a lot of people have no desire to participate on SOLOP for the same reasons. No need to be threatened by the evil Brandens.

J

Edited May 7, 2007 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil has made some more additions to his comments on his own blog. The most recent is called: James Valliant and "Uncritical Reliance" on "the Brandens".

Neil continues to expose Valliant's shoddy scholarship, arbitrary use of sources (citing a source and denouncing the same source at whim), and laziness in consulting readily available sources, but ones that would require stepping outside of the bibliography of The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker.

I don't believe Valliant really read most of the works in TARC anyway. He basically cited Walker's presentation drawn from them.

Neil particularly focuses on Valliant's double standard in relying on the Brandens' works for historical information (citing information he likes at whim as fact) and simultaneously denouncing those works as worthless historical documents. There are no rational standards identifiable for this practice. It is a whim-based approach based on his religious-type veneration of Rand and hatred of the Brandens (with lip service to the contrary for both).

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Neil,

A while back, I had an extended back and forth discussion with James Valliant where he was trying to press the case that TAS(then TOC) was immoral for having invited the Brandens to speak. It was odd because he cited a passage in Truth and Toleration that mentioned ARI's stance toward the Brandens, but it became clear throughout the course of the discussion that he was unfamiliar with the rest of Truth and Toleration and with the other main documents in the 1989 schism. Do you believe this is the case with TARC as well?

jim

[Neil Parille]

MSK,

Thanks. And by the way I have improved the post a bit. I point out that Valliant's finds Edith Efron highly credible when she attacks N. Branden, but when it comes to Rand she has an ax to grind.

Jim,

Valliant is obviously aware that TARC is highly critical of Rand. I think he is a very poor researcher and just mined the few sources he had. He probably believed that his intended audience (ARI types) would not check his footnotes and sources.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

I saw your entry on SLOP and I sympathize with you. Your whole point is that Valliant did not make his case through (1) conclusions not supported by facts, (2) total misquotes of sources and wrong out-of-context interpretations of many where he did not alter the words, and (3) absolutely sloppy scholarship. I don't expect these points to be addressed in that environment. Instead, you will hear a lot of nonsense about defending Rand (as if she needed defense, which she does not). Since Valliant no longer posts there (at least for now), you are presenting a case to a small group of people who do not count for anything important in the long run. Without Valliant (or cronies), SLOP is certainly no longer an important PARC venue. But I suppose there is limited value in it.

I have to make a comment for accuracy, though. Perigo made a whopper in response to you:

The Brandens were (and are) always at liberty to come on (in Barbara's case simply to remain on) SOLO and confront James Valliant directly.

This is just another of Perigo's lies and shows him caught red-handed in his own brand of rewriting history. Barbara was formally banned from SoloHQ around the time of the "Drooling Beast" episode. Joe Rowlands is the one who insisted on banning Barbara, but Perigo not only endorsed it, he wallowed in it in public all the way up to the separation of SoloHQ into Rebirth of Reason and Solo Passion. The terms of the split were that both would retain the membership of SoloHQ as it was and then go on from there. Not once has Perigo announced that Barbara was no longer banned. (Not that she would have posted in that vile environment of malice against her.) On the contrary, he has gone out of his way to outdo himself in insults to her.

Now that Perigo has lost Valliant, he thinks this kind of statement will somehow lure Barbara back. But the problem is his, not hers. He lost his heavyweight and her accuser through his own childishness and irrationality. Mind games, rewriting history and outright lies will not fix that. But those moral lapses do show clearly one fundamental part of Perigo's character–and, incidentally, why he can't keep good people, other than some NZ friends, around him for a long period of time.

Michael

[emb021]

I, too, was reading the recent discussion on SOLOP for Neil's posting.

It seemed like Phil Coates was the only rational person in the whole discussion.

I thought it interesting that someone said that prehaps taking a critical look at PARC might be interesting. Uh, as if no one has already done so.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Without Valliant (or cronies), SLOP is certainly no longer an important PARC venue.

For the record, Perigo caved into backstage peer pressure (see here) and got his rationalizations lined up like duckies in a row to save face. Valliant and cronies are back (for now), so SLOP is once again an important PARC venue (practically the only one from the PARC side).

Michael

[Rodney]

I make no apology for my view of Peikoff's "advice," but accept that I went a step too far in saying no one could possibly agree or empathise with it out of independent conviction.

This of course is the killer admission that, applied consistently to BB and NB, wipes out the method of the book in question.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James Heaps-Nelson,

I don’t want to do an inter-forum thing, but there is a PARC related theory of omission you have been mentioning on SOLOP (see, for example, here, here, and here. I would like to address some points where there is a severe accuracy problem before they become more of the folklore that will hang around as a minor irritation for a while before they disappear down the memory hole slated for PARC.

This is especially pertinent since Valliant has started posting on SOLOP again. Although the bulk of your allegations are not in PARC, they are clearly derivative. Here is the list of your allegations (more or less in your own words):

1. Rand was dragged through a bogus psychological counseling charade that the Brandens did not come clean about in their books.

2. Nowhere in Nathaniel Branden's memoir or in Barbara Branden's biography can you find any significant discussion of Rand's development of the Objectivist philosophy in the 1960's. (Both Branden pieces focus on Ayn Rand as novelist to the exclusion of Ayn Rand as philosopher save the philosophical passages in Atlas.)

3. No discussion of the written explication of the Objectivist Ethics in Rand's title essay for VOS or the University of Wisconsin talk unveiling it.

4. No discussion of the articles that would become the Introduction Objectivist Epistemology.

5. No discussion of the material that went into the Romantic Manifesto.

6. It was really only possible for Barbara Branden to render one side of the story. Her research pool only consists of those who split with Ayn Rand.

7. Barbara's biography is entitled The Passion of Ayn Rand, but Rand's passion was only one facet of her personality. Her commitment to reason and rationality looms large as the other major component.

I will not argue the merits of any of these allegations here except their accuracy—are they true or false? I believe if statements like this are to be made responsibly, they should at least correspond to excerpts from the works you mentioned. If ample excerpts to the contrary exist in those works (within proper context), then one would have to conclude that the statements you made are not accurate. I believe that is reasonable. So let’s look.

1. Rand was dragged through a bogus psychological counseling charade that the Brandens did not come clean about in their books.

There are strong indications of these sessions in the works of the Brandens and I only want to mention them to dispel the impression that nothing at all was said (i.e., coming clean in your phrase). Let’s start with Barbara (The Passion of Ayn Rand). The psychological sessions did not start with Nathaniel and Rand alone. They started in early 1964 with Barbara, Nathaniel and Rand. The reason was to save the marriage of Barbara and Nathaniel. Only after the marriage was over did the sessions continue with Nathaniel alone. Towards the end, the 1967-1968 journal entries Rand wrote (both the ones available in PARC and the ones omitted by Valliant, and even any others that may exist) had three functions: (1) to work out her thinking on paper, (2) to be used in her sessions with Nathaniel, and (3) to be used in her conversations with Barbara for analyzing Nathaniel. Rand also had long conversations with Frank about Nathaniel’s love problems with her.

(p. 333)

For several months, Ayn met with Nathaniel and me to discuss the conflicts that divided us, exhibiting a kindness, a generosity, a tenderness that had long seemed absent from her personality. Despite her desire for Nathaniel, despite her hectic professional schedule of public appearances and writing, she devoted priceless hours to the effort to understand and resolve the problems destroying the marriage of the man she loved. She blamed neither of us; there was no hint of moralism in her attitude or conversation, only a deep, loving desire for our happiness. But by then, the marriage that should never have begun had reached its final end.

. . .

(p 335)

Nathaniel tried to allay Ayn’s uneasiness by assurances of his love, assurances that he needed and wanted her, that she was the most important person in his life—and he struggled to believe that it was so. He spoke vaguely of problems troubling him, of physical and emotional exhaustion, of depression, of being overworked, as Ayn tried conscientiously to listen and to help. But as his retreat from her and the progressive deterioration of their relationship continued to escalate through the ensuing months, she began to question the reality of his love. Yet still—struggling vainly with guilt and a sense of failure, desperately telling himself his feeling for Patrecia would somehow miraculously vanish, that Ayn need never know of it, that it would equally miraculously be replaced by a passionate sexual response to Ayn—Nathaniel continued to assure her that the problems besetting the relationship had nothing to do with his love for her.

It was the “triangle,” he explained—the triangle consisting of Ayn, Frank, and himself—that seemed to him an insuperable emotional barrier. He was naming something that, like his weariness and depression, was an authentic problem, but not the basic problem. He spoke of his pain during the early days of their affair, his constant awareness that he shared her with another man, that he had no rights in the relationship and could make no claims, that her first loyalty was and had to be to her husband. His emotional state, he said, was caused by the knowledge that if they resumed their affair, he would be sentenced to that pain again; it was the fear of it that was causing his retreat from Ayn.

Trying to ignore her feeling that she was hearing only part of the reasons for his estrangement, her bewilderment that the difficulties of the triangle could be more important to Nathaniel than the value she represented to him—Ayn plunged into a period of working to help Nathaniel with this new conflict. She wrote lengthy papers on her analysis of his psychology, on the meaning and solution to what appeared to be tormenting him, they discussed her papers and her theories for long and futile hours. But the result of her best efforts was not an improvement in their relationship; it became still more gray and strained and empty. The romance whose meaning to her had been the enjoyment of life on earth, was deteriorating into endless psychological sessions, endless excruciatingly difficult labor for her—and the tortured sense that everything she did and said was somehow beside the point, that she was losing him.

. . .

(p. 338)

I struggled to help her in every way I could devise. She discussed her endless papers about Nathaniel’s psychology; at her request, I talked with him about those papers and about Ayn’s changing theories of his motivation. And often, I begged him to return to sanity and to Ayn or to tell her the truth before it was too late for all of us. And then I saw his anguish and an anxiety that was leaping out of control, and I knew that he could neither resume his affair with Ayn nor confess the truth to her; I felt, as he appeared to feel, that the day he broke with Ayn would be the final break in his sense of self-value—and that I was demanding the impossible of him. And so I would return to Ayn, and talk with her again, as she evolved theory after theory to explain Nathaniel.

And I lived in my own anguish with the knowledge that I was aiding Nathaniel in his deception, that Ayn trusted me and I was keeping the truth from her.

. . .

(p. 338)

Throughout this year of endless nightmare, Ayn talked compulsively to Frank about Nathaniel and her problems with him. Frank saw the wife who was his strong rock, his certainty, his source of knowledge in a world with which he had never learned to cope, tortured by her romantic problems with another man. He did not speak of his feelings, as he had never spoken of them; but once, in a sudden, contextless anger, he said, “That man is no damn good! Why won’t you see it?”

As an aside, please note from this excerpt that the journal entries that Valliant exhibited in PARC were all seen by Nathaniel and Barbara. This includes all the ones that were not included in PARC.

Here are some comments from Nathaniel from My Years with Ayn Rand. The first deals with how he tried to manipulate Rand into coming around to accepting the end of the affair and offering him an out (instead of him telling her) so he could be with Patrecia. The second was about his conversations with Rand, and the remarks can easily be construed to continue into the psychological sessions. The third mentions the sessions, albeit briefly. What is striking is how much these excerpts are borne out by Rand’s journal entries presented in PARC. With a small adaptation, they could easily be confused with the actual journal entries.

(p. 315)

I hated the calculations and manipulations that this strategy entailed, but I felt that my back was to the wall and that my survival was at stake. Another, previously unrecognized self had emerged within me. It was not the younger self that Patrecia had reawakened, or the adult, masculine self that had fallen in love with her, but someone ageless, androgynous, and utterly ruthless who had no purpose other than to assist me in realizing my aims and was willing to blast through any obstacle or impediment.

. . .

(p. 325)

My conversations with Ayn focused increasingly on what was wrong with me, why I was so emotionally repressed, and into what dimension I had disappeared.

I knew that I was putting her through hell. I’d given her no way to understand me. At times, when I was not immersed in my own pain, I was tormented by the suffering I was causing. Yet I took no action to change anything. I delayed facing the fact that nothing in our situation would change until and unless I made the change. And because I delayed, I caused needless suffering and humiliation to us both. I avoided a responsibility that was mine to take. It was as if I were waiting for a miracle to deliver me.

. . .

(p. 326)

We had “psychological” conversations in which she struggled to “help” me with my seeming depression and confusion, and I looked for opportunities to drop the hints that might grow in her mind toward the conclusions I desired.

In light of these quotes, a person could argue that the specific duration of the psychological sessions was not mentioned, but this person could not claim that the sessions were not mentioned at all. As to the content of the sessions, both sets of quotes are very clear about the level and nature of deception that was going on during the time the sessions were occurring. (Talk about owning up!)

PARC defenders place some kind of substantial value on saying that a lie was made at one place instead of another. I don’t. I see the lack of precision, but not a degree of substance. I imagine only PARC defenders can see such a substance.

OK, I can agree that they said “exhaustion” and “depression” and “confusion” and so forth among a plethora of other excuses rather than sexual impotence per se, but that is about the only item of any possible substance I can perceive. Even then, this was only one excuse out of many that were discussed during the sessions as to why Nathaniel was unable to resume the romance. Impotence certainly was not the only thing discussed in those sessions. Rand’s journal entries show that it was not even discussed very much.

As an added thought , your original statement made it sound as if impotence were a permanent problem sustained as a sham over 4 years. Even Rand's own notes discussed the honeymoon periods and Valliant certainly complained enough about Branden having sex with Rand during that time. It was merely a sporadic excuse and was treated as such in Rand's journal entries. It is inaccurate to give the impression that it was a false malady lasting 4 year. (This paragraph was added one day after the original post.)

Actually, I think that it is reasonable to imagine that if a lie was being told in the morning, it would be sustained in the afternoon, and if a lie was being told during conversations, telephone calls, etc., over months, it would be sustained in psychological sessions with the same person during that time. But as I said, I am not discussing the merit of your allegation. I am mentioning only the fact that the issue you raised actually was mentioned and/or strongly implied in the Brandens’ works. It was not given in the form and/or precision PARC defenders desire, but that is all. It is incorrect to say otherwise.

There is one final point about Rand’s journal entries given in PARC and the psychological sessions dealt within them. They not only reveal the deception in more detail, they also reveal some extremely unpleasant things about Rand herself, irrespective of Valliant’s cheerleading between sections, and irrespective of the deception or her analyses of Nathaniel’s character or problems. They also reveal clearly in many places that Rand wanted the sessions for her own ends, which vastly exceeded merely understanding Nathaniel. She wanted the sessions just as much as Nathaniel did. But this subject is for another time. I don’t wish to go into it here.

2. Nowhere in Nathaniel Branden's memoir or in Barbara Branden's biography can you find any significant discussion of Rand's development of the Objectivist philosophy in the 1960's. (Both Branden pieces focus on Ayn Rand as novelist to the exclusion of Ayn Rand as philosopher save the philosophical passages in Atlas.)

The very first point that jumps out with this is that it is impossible to divorce the development of Objectivist philosophy in the 1960's from the Nathaniel Branden Institute. Trying to do so is nothing but wishful thinking, especially since Rand herself participated so actively in NBI. Of course, she also edited and approved Nathaniel’s course, “Basic Principles of Objectivism” and Barbara’s “Principles of Efficient Thinking,” two of the greatest nonfiction sources of spreading a formal understanding of Objectivism during those years (and there were the other later lecture courses). Then there was The Objectivist Newsletter and later The Objectivist, where Rand wrote articles, and edited and approved all the others, thus where she developed many of her ideas.

Both of these topics were dealt with in depth in the works of both Brandens, so much so that there are simply too many quotes to mention. You can find the story of NBI, starting from the initial small lecture series given by Nathaniel on up to the close of NBI in the following places: The Passion of Ayn Rand, pp. 306-352, and My Years with Ayn Rand, pp. 205-351. The actual development of the philosophy at NBI is interspersed with biographical and autobiographical events, and comments about The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist. Further information on these publications, including mentions and/or discussions of several articles in them, are interspersed throughout the entire works of the Brandens. Once again, there are simply too many quotes to give in this post. I don’t intend to retype the entire books.

Now here’s the thing. You may not like the parts that were presented and how they were presented. You may not like the fact that Rand endorsed and used NBI and the magazines to help develop and spread her philosophy. You may not like the fact that information on this was interspersed with details about the affair and leading up to the break and thereafter. But you cannot claim, as you did, that there was no significant discussion. This is just plain false. But I will go even further. Let’s discuss another essential: her philosophical ideas.

When an author writes a biography or memoirs for the general public (the target audience of both Brandens), he can mention highlights of technical issues, but he would commit publishing suicide if he made an overly-detailed technical discussion. He also concentrates on the masterworks of the subject, not secondary works.

For a good example, in a biography of Rachmaninoff, a biographer will discuss the piano concertos (with focus on 2 and 3), the symphonies (with focus on 2 and 3), Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Vocalise, Prelude in C-sharp minor and maybe a couple more works. He would also include Rachmaninoff’s activities as a concert pianist and symphony conductor. So any discussion of Rachmaninoff’s works would cross over with his work as a performer if there were important connections. (Think novelist and philosopher for Rand.) What he would not do is make an in-depth analysis of Rachmaninoff’s Études-Tableaux, Opus 33 and Opus 39, mentioning where he got the inspiration for any specific one, or the form or composition technique used, etc. He would merely mention this set of works in passing.

I see the same criteria used by both Nathaniel and Barbara: for the development of the philosophy, they concentrated on the genesis of the different ideas. Even then, there are some differences. Nathaniel was directly instrumental in coming up with some key ideas in Objectivism and Barbara came up with at least one (psycho-epistemology).

Essentially, Barbara discussed most of the philosophical ideas that were later developed in the 60’s in relation to Galt’s speech, since that was where most of them originated. I could give you several quotes, but the generality of your statement “Both Branden pieces focus on Ayn Rand as novelist to the exclusion of Ayn Rand as philosopher save the philosophical passages in Atlas” needs a different approach to show the inaccuracy of it.

Before I do so, however, here is a good example to illustrate context. In The Passion of Ayn Rand, p. 265-266, Barbara discussed the “is-ought” problem in Rand’s theory of value. After this had been discussed for the general public, it was not necessary to show how this issue was included in this or that later nonfiction essay, nor refined or extended with technical details. Your complaint would be akin to mentioning Rachminanoff as a pianist and his writing of the piano concertos, but then complaining that his writing for piano was not properly covered because the Études-Tableaux were not discussed in depth.

But back to the ideas. If you want to have a notion of how the philosophical ideas in The Passion of Ayn Rand are discussed, go to the Index on p. 436. The entry is under “Rand, Ayn,” and the subcategory is “ideas of.” I will quote the entire thing so you can see how the focus was not merely on Rand as a novelist, but also included philosopher.

ideas of

altruism opposed, 96, 145, 211, 230, 266

anti-feminism, 17-18

anti-feminism denied, 411-12

benevolent and malevolent universe, 235, 242, 404

concept of limited government, 413

both conservatives and liberals denounced, 253

defense of money, 284

egoism defended, 133, 141

emotionalism, 275-276

emotions as the result of thinking, 194-195

essence of her philosophy, 294

evil as impotent, 135

faith as the worst curse of mankind, 165

freedom as individualism, 19, 22

free will, xii, 45, 194

historical trends as product of philosophy, 230

initiation of force opposed, 114-115, 413

in Libertarian Party statement, 413

love as response to highest value, 248, 333

mind-body dichotomy, 221, 253

pain and frustration as not normal, 8, 46-47

philosophy as primarily epistemology, 322-23

politics as moral issue, 19

psychological theories, 193-195

reasoning as superior faculty, 23, 36, 45, 165, 361

religion and reason as incompatible, 165, 228-29

sanction of the victim, 221, 270, 401-2

sex theory, 33-34, 248-249

slavery as immoral, 45

social metaphysics, 269-270

telling the truth, 354

on theory and practice, 141

theory of the origin of values, 266

world as battlefield between good and evil, 11, 19

Once again, you may not like the way these ideas are covered but it is incorrect to insinuate that they were not covered at all. I admit, there are a few ideas in this listing that are not philosophy, but there is also more of the philosophy that was discussed that is not in this listing.

In terms of Rand’s development as a philosopher in the 60’s, I believe this has to do with her nonfiction writing. Barbara covered this beautifully. Her discussion of Rand’s two-year depression after Atlas Shrugged and turn-around because of the success of Nathaniel’s lecture series on her philosophy, then NBI, is famous. You can find the discussion of this and several other influences on her nonfiction development in Chapter 26 of The Passion of Ayn Rand (pp. 306-330). Frankly, this chapter is rich in Rand’s philosophical ideas. But development-wise, a couple of quotes especially stand out.

(p. 323)

A contributing influence in Ayn’s decision to write nonfiction, she said, was her discussions with John Hospers, who is today a professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and the author of a number of distinguished books on aesthetics and philosophy, and was then a philosophy professor at Brooklyn College.

. . .

(p. 324)

The effect of Ayn’s conversations with a professional philosopher remained with her, and made her eager to write a nonfiction work on epistemology. She began to feel enthusiastically impatient to begin work, a feeling she had not experienced since finishing Atlas Shrugged. “It’s the feeling of entering on of big assignment,” she exclaimed happily. “It’s wonderful!”

On Nathaniel’s side, since his two books are personal memoirs, I contend that a discussion of the development of Rand as a philosopher throughout the 60’s is out of place. Even so, it is inaccurate for you to claim that this was not covered in his memoirs. The sheer volume of discussion of the activities and content of The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist more than refutes this. To refresh our memories, let us remember that the essay compilation books (VOS, CUI, etc.) all came from these periodicals.

But this leads to a question that needs to be made. Why would Nathaniel write exclusively of Rand’s development as a philosopher writing nonfiction during this time and exclude himself when he wrote such an extensive amount of the essays and notices for those publications, coming close to Rand’s own production? I will not get into the later airbrushing of Nathaniel’s works and ideas here (and that part is very ugly), but it is a little too much to expect the person whose works and ideas have been airbrushed out over the years to write his own memoirs according to that particular party line.

There are tidbits of information on Rand’s development as a nonfiction writing philosopher that I have not read anywhere else. Here is a good example from My Years with Ayn Rand (p. 296). The year under discussion was 1964 (so the time would be 1963 for being a “year earlier.”)

A year earlier, Robert Hessen and I visited Ayn to propose that she publish in book form a collection of the essays on ethics that she had been writing for The Objectivists Newsletter. The idea was Robert’s, so we knew Ayn would resist, because she had not come up with it first. But after some discussion, Ayn agreed, and she assembled a book titled The Virtue of Selfishness. First published by New American Library in softcover in 1964, its success led to a hardcover edition. It was followed in 1966 by another collection, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I contributed a number of essays to both books, and in the second book there were also articles by Alan Greenspan and Robert Hessen.

I had urged Ayn to expand on her ethical theories when she wrote for The Objectivist Newsletter, instead of merely commenting on current events, as she was often inclined to do, and I was gratified to see her more philosophical essays pulled together and made available in a single volume. I was especially pleased to see in print for a wider audience the elaboration of her ideas concerning individual rights, which were the foundation of her political thinking.

I want to interrupt this paragraph to state that if this is not material concerning Rand’s development as a philosopher in the 60’s, I don’t know what is. I bet that you and many people did not know that the idea for VOS came from Robert Hessen. But this excerpt contains another really cool tidbit on the development of a specific philosophical idea not covered in her fiction. The quote below starts at the point left off in the interrupted paragraph.

She included her essay on racism, a piece I had suggested for the newsletter, against her initial reluctance.

“Of course, racism is evil, but the leftists have made it their issue,” she had protested.

I had argued that that was precisely why we should come out with our own analysis of the problems; we should not surrender the field to the opposition, and it was important that the piece come specifically from her. In the end, after several months of discussion, she had agreed and had written a powerful article branding racism as biological collectivism that was totally incompatible with an individualist philosophy and explaining why a free market best serves the interests of all races. She reiterated her theme that the smallest minority on earth is the individual and that the rights of minorities can have no other base.

There is much more in My Years with Ayn Rand. All you have to do is read it. Saying that Rand’s development as a philosopher in the 60’s was not covered or glossed over is inaccurate.

I have not yet covered the rest of your allegations (3 to 7) and I will get to them in another post. This one is long enough.

Please don’t think I am picking on you. I am not saying that you are being inaccurate on purpose. I think your inaccuracies come from the gossip line effect (one person tells another, who tells another, who tells another, and the story grows and grows along the way). My aim with this post is only to make sure that criticisms of the Brandens’ books based on PARC are accurate. Your posts were particularly well organized enough to use for that purpose.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael Stuart Kelly,

Thank you for this reply as it is the most organized attempt to address some of the points being made in PARC and elsewhere.

Rand was a model in clarity of exposition and precision. It was hard to misunderstand what she was saying.

Scholars study the Objectivist philosophy from the serial periodicals TON, TO, and the Ayn Rand Letter for completeness. However Rand had a specific goal in mind in organizing articles in book form. She started with theoretical essays which laid out the framework of her philosophy then proceeded to essays regarding applications and extensions. There was a reason for this. She believed it was important to essentialize then concretize.

Her main theoretical work outside Atlas and the Fountainhead could be captured in 8 essays and IOE. The Objectivist Ethics, What is Capitalism, The Nature of Government, The Psycho-Epistemology of Art, Art and Cognition, Art and Sense of Life, Philosophy and Sense of Life and For the New Intellectual. None of these were substantially discussed in Barbara's or Nathaniel's book. Some maybe obliquely or in passing, but no more than that.

I am willing to entertain charitable explanations for this in that much of what was written in the memoir and the biography was driven by people, places and events, but the essentials were completely missed.

On to the discussion of the counselling sessions. Do you really think there was an adequate discussion such that people understood the context of the denouement where Rand talked about impotence etc. in either Barbara or Nathaniel's books?

One last thing. You mention that what I have to say is derivative from PARC. Most of these thoughts I have had before I read PARC and I had wiritten negative comments about the Branden biographies on SOLOHQ before Perigo swung against Barbara. You may feel that they are logically derivative from PARC but that would be a coincidence only. Also, I have had mostly positive things to say about Nathaniel's work in psychology. I have no factional axe to grind and it is likely that this will be the last I have to say on the subject.

Jim

Edited May 26, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Chris Grieb]

Jim,

I have frequently thought the Branden biographies were only a first step. I think you hit on some of the problems.

I am afraid that a complete biography will be a long time coming out. ARI's policies will make it hard for an independent writer to do the work that is necessary. ARI has a great deal of material which is to some extent unavailable. I think ARI's attitude is similar to the Mormons and Christian Scientists use of the historical material. The Christian Scientists have only in recent years allowed independent researcher use of the church archives. This is almost 100 years after Mary Baker Eddy's death. I am afraid it may take almost as long with ARI.

[Guyau]

Jim, you remarked that Rand's "main theoretical work outside Atlas and the Fountainhead could be captured in 8 essays and IOE." The eight on your list are:

The Objectivist Ethics

What is Capitalism?

The Nature of Government

The Psycho-Epistemology of Art

Art and Cognition

Art and Sense of Life

Philosophy and Sense of Life

For the New Intellectual

I think there are four more that should be in your Main list:

Kant v. Sullivan (epistemology & phil of science)

The Metaphysical v. The Man-Made (metaphysics)

Causality v. Duty (ethics)

Selfishness without a Self (ethics)

I have not read any of the biographical books that have been written so far concerning Rand. Those are not for me. I have read a few intellectual biographies, which track along the compositions of the thinker in the order of their creation. These are very nice:

Frank Sulloway's Freud: Biologist of the Mind

Frank Manuel's A Portrait of Isaac Newton

Rudiger Safranski's Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography

Manfred Kuehn's Kant: A Biography

A while back, Lester Hunt penned a paper on the ways in which Rand was developing beyond and replying to Nietzsche in her novel The Fountainhead. Chris, I think a lot of good work is waiting to be written concerning Rand's intellectual development, based simply on close reading of Rand's works with that purpose in mind. In addition to Professor Hunt's paper, I recall that there is a little work along these lines included within the books on Rand's philosophy by Merrill, Sciabarra, and Gotthelf.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim, you remarked that Rand's "main theoretical work outside Atlas and the Fountainhead could be captured in 8 essays and IOE." The eight on your list are:

The Objectivist Ethics

What is Capitalism?

The Nature of Government

The Psycho-Epistemology of Art

Art and Cognition

Art and Sense of Life

Philosophy and Sense of Life

For the New Intellectual

I think there are four more that should be in your Main list:

Kant v. Sullivan (epistemology & phil of science)

The Metaphysical v. The Man-Made (metaphysics)

Causality v. Duty (ethics)

Selfishness without a Self (ethics)

I have not read any of the biographical books that have been written so far concerning Rand. Those are not for me. I have read a few intellectual biographies, which track along the compositions of the thinker in the order of their creation. These are very nice:

Frank Sulloway's Freud: Biologist of the Mind

Frank Manuel's A Portrait of Isaac Newton

Rudiger Safranski's Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography

Manfred Kuehn's Kant: A Biography

A while back, Lester Hunt penned a paper on the ways in which Rand was developing beyond and replying to Nietzsche in her novel The Fountainhead. Chris, I think a lot of good work is waiting to be written concerning Rand's intellectual development, based simply on close reading of Rand's works with that purpose in mind. In addition to Professor Hunt's paper, I recall that there is a little work along these lines included within the books on Rand's philosophy by Merrill, Sciabarra, and Gotthelf.

Stephen,

Thanks for that thoughtful reply. I agree with your additions to the list. I am very familiar with Causality vs Duty and The Metaphysical vs The Man-made. You have inspired me to go back and read. Selfishness without a Self and Kant vs Sullivan. I probably have not read these since high school or college. Thanks also for the biography suggestions. I'm always looking for good treatments of major intellectual figures.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

However Rand had a specific goal in mind in organizing articles in book form. She started with theoretical essays which laid out the framework of her philosophy then proceeded to essays regarding applications and extensions. There was a reason for this. She believed it was important to essentialize then concretize.

Her main theoretical work outside Atlas and the Fountainhead could be captured in 8 essays and IOE. The Objectivist Ethics, What is Capitalism, The Nature of Government, The Psycho-Epistemology of Art, Art and Cognition, Art and Sense of Life, Philosophy and Sense of Life and For the New Intellectual. None of these were substantially discussed in Barbara's or Nathaniel's book. Some maybe obliquely or in passing, but no more than that.

Jim,

Actually much of this has not been covered yet since I did not get to all of your objections. I haven't finished. But there is something that is very misleading in your first paragraph above. You make it sound like Rand set out to write The Virtue of Selfishness (and her other nonfiction books). She did not. Her attitude, which I think is clear from Nathaniel's excerpts, is that the main theoretical work had already been done with Atlas Shrugged. Her essays in the periodicals were mostly applications of this theoretical part, with an occasional theoretical essay. Rand actually was unaware of the possibility of making a nonfiction book about ethics until she was nudged to consider it. If it were otherwise, the essays in The Virtue of Selfishness would be more or less in chronological order. They aren't. Let's look:

1. The Objectivist Ethics, Rand, (1961)

2. Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice, Branden, (March 1963)

3. The Ethics of Emergencies, Rand, (February 1963)

4. The "Conflicts" of Men's Interests, Rand, (August 1962)

5. Isn't Everyone Selfish?, Branden, (September 1962)

6. The Psychology of Pleasure, Branden, (February 1964)

7. Doesn't Life Require Compromise?, Rand, (July 1962)

8. How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?, Rand, (April 1962)

9. The Cult of Moral Grayness, (June 1964)

10. Collectivized Ethics, (January 1963)

11. The Monument Builders, (December 1962)

12. Man's Rights, (April 1963)

13. Collectivized "Rights,"(June 1963)

14. The Nature of Government, (December 1963)

15. Government Financing in a Free Society, (February 1964)

16. The Divine Right of Stagnation, Branden, (August 1963)

17. Racism, Rand, (September 1963)

18. Counterfeit Individualism, Branden, (April 1962)

19. The Argument from Intimidation, Rand, (July 1964)

Here is what it looks like without the titles:

(1961)

(March 1963)

(February 1963)

(August 1962)

(September 1962)

(February 1964)

(July 1962)

(April 1962)

(June 1964)

(January 1963)

(December 1962)

(April 1963)

(June 1963)

(December 1963)

(February 1964)

(August 1963)

(September 1963)

(April 1962)

(July 1964)

It's all over the place.

There is another aspect that needs to be considered, if I were to consider your lens as a correct way of judging Rand's development as a philosopher writing nonfiction for inclusion in a biography. If Rand had in mind to start by laying the theoretical foundation first, notice that out of the first 6 essays, half of them were written by Nathaniel Branden. As this is still in the theory part of Objectivist ethics (she fully intended to wed ethics and psychology here), they should be considered just as important as Rand's own essays. She was the person who included them.

(Incidentally, as an aside, ARI certainly does not share your concern. In the Objectivism Research CDROM, Branden's essays are omitted, thus according to this standard, part of the theory has been washed out in presenting the Objectivist ethics in this form to the public.)

I don't recall Nathaniel or Barbara mentioning any of those essays by Nathaniel (and they are not in the index to either books), so they were not really neglecting Rand as a philosopher by excluding discussion of this essay or that. They did that with Nathaniel's work, too. As I pointed out, the ideas Rand developed in her essays had their roots elsewhere and the genesis of these ideas were amply discussed when they were first developed in Barbara's biography and Nathaniel's memoir.

Remember that The Virtue of Selfishness came out in 1964. But there was an earlier book that gave a very strong theoretical foundation of Objectivist ethics: Who is Ayn Rand?. You will find the opening essay, "The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged" in there. Notice that, as with Rand's opening essay of VOS, "The Objectivist Ethics," Branden's essay was originally a lecture (a talk on radio), or more aptly, a series of talks.

Who is Ayn Rand? book was published in hardcover in June 1962 (which included the biographical essay by Barbara). This was two years before the publication of VOS. Then the softcover version came out in June 1964, around the time of the publication of VOS. The resounding success of Who is Ayn Rand? was probably the reason Nathaniel's essay was not included in VOS. Here are some pertinent quotes from My Years with Ayn Rand.

(p. 249)

Among my other activities, I was giving a series of radio talks (invited by station WBAI-FM) on "the moral revolution in Atlas Shrugged." Bennett Cerf was present one evening at Ayn's as we sat listening to a recorded broadcast. Afterward, when Bennett complemented me, I wondered aloud if there might be a worthwhile book in these talks, and Bennett enthusiastically said yes. Soon we were discussing the book I would write—Who is Ayn Rand?

. . .

(p. 249)

I welcomed the opportunity to do my own exposition of Ayn's ethics. Because Ayn had been compelled in Atlas to present her metaethics (her derivation of "Man's Life as the standard of value") in its barest essentials, I wanted to write a more detailed presentation. In later years, she praised my effort as being clearer than the version not only in the novel but also in her own nonfiction essays, such as "The Objectivist Ethics," which appeared in the collection The Virtue of Selfishness. I mention this not out of boastfulness but to stress the nature of our intellectual relationship during this period.

. . .

(p. 296)

Who is Ayn Rand? was published in softcover in June, 1964, with a first printing of 100,000 copies, and it went through several such printings throughout the balance of the decade.

Like Rand, Nathaniel did not start out to write his book of nonfiction essays. His own plan was to write a book on anxiety (not even self-esteem at that time).

The time frame for writing "The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged" is 1961, which is the same as Rand's copyright of "The Objectivist Ethics." They both wrote their respective talks at the same time. So It is more than clear from this that the nonfiction theoretical part of Objectivist ethics was not Rand alone. She was developing everything in conjunction with Nathaniel at that time. There is no way she was imagining a book on ethics at that time by establishing the theory first, then later adding on discussions of concrete applications. Thus there is no reason to say that this was her method of development as a philosopher. It simply wasn't and it is inaccurate to say so.

The fact is that she later organized her material that way, but this was long after all of the material had been written and published or presented. In fact, with the exception of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, all of her nonfiction essay collections were done that way—written haphazardly, then later organized. ITOE, the exception, was published as single essays first, but it aligned chronological presentation with thematic presentation. As was mentioned before, this was a project that had its seed in Rand's discussions with John Hospers and it took about eight years to come to completion. This was a book she wanted to write. None of her other nonfiction books were born as books.

I will deal with the other inaccuracies as I complete my initial post.

I do want to mention one more thing about the sexual impotence during psychological sessions theme. Your original statement made it sound as if impotence were a permanent problem sustained as a sham over 4 years. Even Rand's own notes discussed the honeymoon periods and Valliant certainly complained enough about Branden having sex with Rand during that time. It was merely a sporadic excuse and was treated as such in Rand's journal entries. I am going to alter my previous post to include this thought.

When I mentioned that your thoughts were derivative of PARC, I did not mean that you took Valliant's ideas and got them wrong. I meant something more along the lines of the culture promoted by PARC—essentially a "Defend Rand at all costs!" attitude wedded to sloppy and inept scholarship (or to say it more lightly, wedded to not checking the material properly). The difference I perceive between your inaccuracies and Valliant's is one of carelessness on your part, but intentional and manipulative malice on his.

More coming.

(btw - I used your full name at the start merely for quick identification, since I was coming out of the blue. There is no sarcasm or false formality intended.)

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

1. I said Rand had a plan in organizing, not intending to write. I don't have a problem with your elaboration or the timeline so I'll leave it at that.

2. I don't think the way she organized the books had anything to do with her development as a philosopher. I simply indicated that a cogent presentation of the philosophy would regard those essays as important and the order in which she presented them in book form as important.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1. I said Rand had a plan in organizing, not intending to write. I don't have a problem with your elaboration or the timeline so I'll leave it at that.

2. I don't think the way she organized the books had anything to do with her development as a philosopher. I simply indicated that a cogent presentation of the philosophy would regard those essays as important and the order in which she presented them in book form as important.

Jim,

I have no problem with this, since it is your opinion of what you deem important. (And I have indicated that I find this a bit stuffy for biographies aimed at the general public or personal memoirs. But I see no real issue with such disagreement among people of goodwill.)

My problem was with the accuracy of your earlier statement: "Nowhere in Nathaniel Branden's memoir or in Barbara Branden's biography can you find any significant discussion of Rand's development of the Objectivist philosophy in the 1960's. (Both Branden pieces focus on Ayn Rand as novelist to the exclusion of Ayn Rand as philosopher save the philosophical passages in Atlas.)"

Words like "nowhere" and "exclusion" and so forth are factual statements. They were not accurate, as I have shown.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

1. I said Rand had a plan in organizing, not intending to write. I don't have a problem with your elaboration or the timeline so I'll leave it at that.

2. I don't think the way she organized the books had anything to do with her development as a philosopher. I simply indicated that a cogent presentation of the philosophy would regard those essays as important and the order in which she presented them in book form as important.

Jim,

I have no problem with this, since it is your opinion of what you deem important. (And I have indicated that I find this a bit stuffy for biographies aimed at the general public or personal memoirs. But I see no real issue with such disagreement among people of goodwill.)

My problem was with the accuracy of your earlier statement: "Nowhere in Nathaniel Branden's memoir or in Barbara Branden's biography can you find any significant discussion of Rand's development of the Objectivist philosophy in the 1960's. (Both Branden pieces focus on Ayn Rand as novelist to the exclusion of Ayn Rand as philosopher save the philosophical passages in Atlas.)"

Words like "nowhere" and "exclusion" and so forth are factual statements. They were not accurate, as I have shown.

Michael

Michael,

I am willing to acknowledge overstatement in these statements. It was not intentional. I do regard Nathaniel as a collaborator in the development of the Objectivist Ethics. What the extent of the collaboration was, I'm not entirely sure. Nathaniel has his Moral Revolution of Atlas Shrugged listed for sale with TOC/TAS. However, someone reading Judgment Day in the early 1990's would have no idea what he was talking about unless they had read Who is Ayn Rand? Since Nathaniel and Barbara have repudiated a good part of what was written in that book, I will take his essay as authoritiative, but consider the rest something they would not agree with now unless they indicate otherwise.

Jim

Edited May 26, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since Nathaniel and Barbara have repudiated a good part of what was written in that book...

Jim,

In terms of how the Brandens view Who Is Ayn Rand? (which parts are good and bad), I prefer to let Nathaniel speak for himself. From what I know, Barbara's view of that book is very similar. The following quote is from the Q&A part on Nathaniel's website and the link is here.

Questions and Answers: 12 April 1998

Rodney Rawlings asks:

There was a time when you said you regretted ever publishing “Who Is Ayn Rand”? Has your attitude toward that book changed?

Nathaniel Branden responds:

Following my break with Ayn Rand in 1968, I reread the book and found it adulatory, weighted with hyperbole, and false in the picture of Ayn Rand it presented as, in effect, a “perfect” human being. Not that I didn’t still agree with much that the book had to say philosophically and literarily, but I saw the book overall as lacking in critical judgment and much too worshipful in tone.

Two chapters that made me especially uncomfortable were the one on psychology, because I was beginning to understand that my differences with Rand in the field of psychology were enormous—and the biographical essay written by Barbara Branden, which is less a serious portrait of a person than a publicity release. At the time the book was written, we were both enthralled by Rand’s vision of herself and subscribed to it entirely.

You will therefore understand why later, as my vision began to clear, that book was something of an embarrassment. That is what prompted my statement about wishing I had never published the book.

Now, more years have passed and I find myself wondering if there might not be value in preserving in some form—perhaps on the internet—the book’s lead essay, “The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged.” It is not the way I would write the essay today, but as a piece of history it does convey very accurately the vision of Objectivism we all held at the time, and that I conveyed through my lectures on Objectivism at Nathaniel Branden Institute. For a crash introduction to “the Objectivist world” of the late 1950s and most of the 1960s—in other words, from the publication of Atlas (1957) to the time of the Rand/Branden break (1968)—I doubt that any other essay could do it better.

The other essay I wonder about preserving is “The Literary Method of Ayn Rand.” Again, my adulatory style is a source of discomfort to me; but, on the other hand, the essay does offer a valuable discussion of what Rand was up to as an artist and why, aesthetically, I admired (and admire) her novels as much as I do (even with all the reservations I am aware of today that I was oblivious to when the essay was written). As a literary stylist, she is appallingly under-appreciated. She was a genius at knowing how to make words do what she wanted them to do.

So, to say it once more, I look at these two essays as worthwhile historical documents containing much that I would still stand by although in some ways I might express myself differently now. And maybe one day I’ll

find the right home (and context) for them.

As you can see, anyone seriously interested in Objectivist ethics should try to obtain a copy of “The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged” due to its importance. I also highly recommend “The Literary Method of Ayn Rand,” despite some statements like the following:

Atlas Shrugged is nearly seven hundred thousand words long—and there is not one superfluous paragraph and not one extraneous word. When one considers the scope of what it covers, its economy is one of its most remarkable features.

I doubt that will convince anyone of that except the die-hards. On the positive side, I found Nathaniel's discussion of plot-theme, although short, was better expressed than Rand's. His analysis of the different components of her style make it an excellent addition for younger people who are now reading "The Art of Fiction Writing" by Rand with relish. Also, on skimming it again, I think there are statements by Rand given there that are not available anywhere else. There are many insights in that essay.

I find the whole movement against the Brandens by the orthodoxy a form of impoverishment of Objectivism. There are many things Branden wrote in the early years that are now difficult to find, but which are extremely important.

Here is a personal experience. One principle stated by Nathaniel has been valuable to me for years and has worked as a kind of Occam's razor at critical times of my life. I wanted to quote it once in an online discussion. Since I read it years ago, I couldn't remember if Rand or Nathaniel wrote it. As time went on, I thought it might have been Rand.

Imagine my surprise when I couldn't find it on the CDROM. I kept thinking, "But this is a standard principle of Objectivism. What gives? Did I read it wrong or imagine it?" Then, after much reading, I discovered it again. The principle is about sacrifice and is given in The Virtue of Selfishness, “Mental Health versus Mysticism,"by Nathaniel Branden, p. 45 of the Signet edition:

A sacrifice, it is necessary to remember, means the surrender of a higher value in favor of a lower value or of a nonvalue. If one gives up that which one does not value in order to obtain that which one does value—or if one gives up a lesser value in order to obtain a greater one—this is not a sacrifice, but a gain.

That was it. If you sacrifice a lower value for a higher one, you have a gain, not a sacrifice. I cannot convey how important this idea has been to me over the years.

Those who do not read Nathaniel's works on Objectivism, even the hardcore ARI people, are depriving themselves of an incalculable treasure. One of the things I think is a crying shame is how ruthless the ARI old guard has been (including this silly movement with PARC) in depriving their adherents of this wealth in order to nurture their hatred.

I intend to try to revive this literature.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

I agree with the above. If people say not to read something for moral or sanction reasons, it's a sure sign that you should. I am amazed that there is a significant fraction of Objectivists who haven't read nathaniel Branden's books on psychology. Regardless of your opinion of someone, their work should stand on its own.

Jim