Who Owns Objectivism?


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

The first issue of Academic Associates' Book News (mid-1969?) contained the following statement about the recent release of Nathaniel Branden's recorded lectures on Objectivism:

    RESPONSA
    A "Legal Notice" appears in the May 1969 issue of The Objectivist magazine, written by attorney Henry Mark Holzer, in behalf of his clients, Ayn Rand and The Objectivist, Inc. It is directed against Academic Associates' recordings of the Nathaniel Branden lectures on the basic principles of Objectivism.
    I have been asked to make an appropriate reply to that Notice, as the attorney for Academic Associates, Inc., and Nathaniel Branden.
    Mr. Holzer's Notice states in part that Ayn Rand has no knowledge of the contents of these records; but that the material should not be called Objectivism and that she repudiates this "venture" and does not endorse the ideas of Mr. Branden, who is said no to be a spokesman for Objectivism.
    For ten years, from 1958 to 1968, Mr. Branden's lectures on "Basic Principles of Objectivism" were given at Nathaniel Branden Institute in New York City and, via tape transcription, to groups in over eighty cities throughout the United States and abroad. More than 35,000 students have attended these lectures. Some have been revised and re-recorded but the course offered by Academic Associates is the same as the lectures originally presented by Nathaniel Branden Institute.
    In addition, from 1962 until 1968, Mr. Branden was co-editor with Miss Rand of The Objectivist magazine and its predecessor, The Objectivist Newsletter, and author of many of its articles on principles of Objectivism. Several of Mr. Branden's articles on Objectivism are published in Ayn Rand's books, "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." Mr. Branden is the author of the book, "Who Is Ayn Rand?"
    With knowledge of these credentials and of the history of Mr. Branden's lectures on "Basic Principles of Objectivism," how can it rationally be said or supported that the material in the Academic Associates' records should not be called Objectivism or that Mr. Branden is not a spokesman of Objectivism!
    Significantly, Mr. Holzer, in his Notice, does not, and indeed cannot, point to any material in the subject records that is inconsistent in any respect with the ideas and philosophy of Objectivism introduced by Ayn Rand in her novels, "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." In other words, there is no substance whatever to Mr. Holzer's insinuations to the contrary.
    As a practicing lawyer in the field of copyright and literary property, I do not know of any legal principle that prevents a teacher from lecturing on any particular philosophy or system of ideas--identifying it by name, and commenting on the ideas and concepts of its originator, identifying such person by name, as well as the source material of first publication. Mr. Justice Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court, crystallized this concept as follows:
    The general rule of law is, that the noblest of human productions--knowledge, truths ascertained, conceptions, and ideas--become, after voluntary communication to others, free as the air to common use.
    Similarly, I do not know of any legal principle that prevents the use of Ayn Rand's name in scholarly discussion of her work in books, articles, or on records. As stated by Judge Rabin, for the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, on March 18, 1969, in Ayn Rand vs. The Hearst Corporation, in dismissing her complaint for alleged unauthorized commercial use of her name:
    That the plaintiff is a public figure needs no discussion. Her complaint rests on that fact. Being a public figure in the literary world, the right to discuss her work, to comment on it, to criticize and compare, is thrown into the public domain.
    Academic Associates and Nathaniel Branden emphatically deny that they have violated any right of Ayn Rand or The Objectivist, Inc., in making available to the public in recorded form, the Nathaniel Branden lectures on the basic principles of Objectivism.
    Neither Ayn Rand nor The Objectivist, Inc., has any business connection whatever with Academic Associates or Nathaniel Branden in respect to these records; and that may be what Mr. Holzer's clients are complaining about.
    Irwin O. Spiegel
    Attorney for Academic Associates, Inc., and Nathaniel Branden
    Los Angeles, California
    April 30, 1969

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, the situation was even worse than is apparent from the letter Roger quoted. When the Objectivist Newsletter was created, Nathaniel and Rand had agreed (without stating it in writing) that although the Newsletter (and, later, The Objectivist) would hold the copyright on their material, each of them would be free to use his own material in any way he wished --in books, talks, etc. At the time of the break, when Nathaniel signed over his share of The Objectivist to Rand without compensation, he first asked for and received her promise -- through Hank Holzer -- that she would honor this agreement. When he expressed concern to me that she might not honor her promise, I, to my eternal shame, expressed horror that he could doubt Rand's word.

A few months later, we received a letter from Holzer, on behalf of Rand and her associates, saying that the copyrights to Nathaniel's material would be released if and only if Nathaniel and I promised, in writing, never to speak about our break with Rand, never to write about it, and never to speak or write about her article denouncing us, "To Whom It May Concern."

We refused, of course. And Nathaniel included much of his Objectivist Newsletter and Objectivist material in his book, "The Psychology of Self-Esteem," as he had always intended doing and as Rand, of course, knew he had intended doing.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara,

She was such a Jekyll and Hyde character. One side of her psyche was separated from the other.

She was not psychologically integrated. It seems you were still seeing her "Jekyll" side while

Nathaniel was starting to see her "Hyde" side.

I have mentioned elsewhere about the causally two sided nature of the core of consciousness: the

experiential/responsive side and the creative/assertive side. I tend to see the brilliance of Rand's

fiction and her philosophy as an expression of her well developed creative/assertive side and her

irrational behaviour as the result of a disowned experiential/responsive side of her psyche. When

a part of the self is disowned, it does not cease to exist. It just operates outside of our conscious

control. For me, this seems to make sense of Rand's behaviour. It also explains why she was so

naive about the nature of emotions and why her own emotions appeared so unevolved.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

Thank you very much for posting that. It highlights an extremely sore spot in the Objectivist culture that needs to be addressed and dealt with on a rational level.

Lawyers are not prone to using Objectivist language, yet Mr. Spiegel could not contain himself before the absurdity of the position that was being advanced and used "rational" as his standard in the following quote (lawyers vastly prefer to say "legal" instead of "rational" as their standard):

With knowledge of these credentials and of the history of Mr. Branden's lectures on "Basic Principles of Objectivism," how can it rationally be said or supported that the material in the Academic Associates' records should not be called Objectivism or that Mr. Branden is not a spokesman of Objectivism!

(My emphasis.)

I can see his jaw dropping.

A person who is shunned still has a mind and a history. These elements cannot be obliterated by the act of shunning. I find one part of Rand's writings extremely unattractive: her harping on the concept of "destroy." If anyone has the Objectivism Research CDROM, do a search on the word "destroy." It is peppered in abundance throughout all of Rand's writings.

Barbara made a very important observation in PAR on noticing that when Rand broke with a person, she ended up denying everything good about that person, including his ideas. I believe we can look critically at this practice without denigrating the high value of her achievements. It's wrong to fake reality, even if you are Ayn Rand. Just because she did this at times, that does not mean we must. Rand has so much more to offer us than that.

This reminds me of a book I read a long time ago called The Murder of Christ by Wilhelm Reich. He tried to examine what he called "the emotional plague of mankind." I found a portion of this work online and a quote from it is especially pertinent to this particular case.

When the Emotional Plague strikes its victim, it strikes hard and fast. It strikes without mercy or regard for truth or facts or anything else except one thing: to kill the victim.

There are public prosecutors who act as true lawyers, establishing the truth by evidence from many sources. There are other prosecutors whose only goal of the prosecution is killing the victim, no matter whether right or wrong, just or unjust.

And this is the murder of Christ today as it was two thousand and four thousand years ago.

I remember at the beginning of the book, Reich had a list of concepts in two columns. I can't remember the terminology, but I do remember the point of each column. On the left was a list of words made by the greatness of human beings. On the right was how the petty people interpret or see such greatness. Thus there was the word "genius" on the left and "eccentric" on the right. There was a long list of ideas like that and it covered a wide range of topics.

Although the terminology was different, Reich was discussing "heroic sense of life" and "second-handers" in Objectivist terms. Now with Rand, in this case, we come to where we can add to that list. On the left, we can put "rational moral judgment." On the right, we put "scapegoating."

Either our values are rational or they are not. Nobody can deny Rand the right to have broken off with any person she so desired for any reason whatsoever. Nobody can deny her the right to claim that the shunned person no longer spoke for her or her property. The truth or falseness of the ideas expressed, however, were not changed because her relationship changed with the person saying them—not even because the person deceived her in a specific context (a love affair).

How can the fundamental axioms be any different when one person instead of another says them? How can the "primacy of existence" or "reason as an absolute" or any other Objectivist truth be any different coming from the mouth of Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden—or David Kelley or Leonard Peikoff (or even some mediocre aspirant to the title of "Objectivist leader" for that matter)?

The truth or falsehood of an idea is to be judged by its relationship to reality, not by relationships between people. If ever the concept of "social metaphysics" had any pure referent in reality, it is the premise that an idea changes its true/false meaning depending on who says it. Calling this nonsense Objectivism has to stop.

Objectivism is by definition a philosophical system of interconnected principles (Objectivists prefer the word "integrated," but that word is losing its meaning from overuse in inappropriate places, especially for condemnation). There is no way on earth to claim property rights to the identification of true or false. What is true for one is true for all people if reason is the standard. No one can be the owner of that.

Yet this is exactly what Rand tried to promote in this case so she could shun and destroy and give form to Reich's "emotional plague."

Mankind has reserved an honor for people who discover true-false relationships. This relationship is called a principle. Mankind attaches their name to the principle. But this is an honor—a way of saying "thank you." It is not property because there is no concrete thing. The idea of Newton owning the law of gravity seems silly, yet his name will forever be associated with "what goes up must come down."

Ayn Rand even wrote about the impossibility of ownership of a philosophy in "Patents and Copyrights" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Here is a quote:

It is important to note, in this connection [the material form of ideas], that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.

(The part in brackets was added by me to give the context without having to include a full paragraph that did not deal with the point I am discussing.)

Like it or not, the copyright of Nathaniel Branden's recorded lectures on Objectivism (meaning the right to use them commercially) belonged to him, not to Ayn Rand. He gave her due credit as originator of the ideas, so he satisfied both legal and moral conditions. He did not plagiarize her, thus it was his property—by Rand's own definition. But it also happened to be the law.

The attempt to prohibit Branden's commercial use of the lectures can only be seen as an attempt to appropriate the property of another. I emphasize—by Rand's own definition of intellectual property.

It gets worse. Saying that Branden's course in Objectivism represented her ideas correctly for over 10 years, but no longer represented them after he was shunned—and then not stipulating which ideas were false or misrepresented, was absurd on the face of it. To my knowledge, Rand never denied the truth-falseness of Branden's property. She merely tried to impede him from exercising his legal and morally correct ownership rights.

It is high time we put this misguided attempt in context—as the result of a broken heart where Rand was not thinking clearly—forgive her for it—and then blast it out of the philosophy for once and for all.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael; What a fine answer on this question. At the time of the split I can remember people who supported Miss Rand making a effort to deny that Nataniel Branden had contributed anything to Objectivism. Some of these same individuals would not even use Branden's name in discussion of some of the concepts he had discovered. This continues in fact that the CD you used does not have any of the writing of the Brandens or other individuals who have left the Objectivist orbit. What one must say about these epsiods is that it is sad. Something I remember about Miss Rand's attack on the recordings is that the last paragragh had a quote from Nathanie Branden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good points, Michael, but I have a few comments and/or clarifications to offer:

Nobody can deny Rand the right to have broken off with any person she so desired for any reason whatsoever. Nobody can deny her the right to claim that the shunned person no longer spoke for her or her property. The truth or falseness of the ideas expressed, however, were not changed because her relationship changed with the person saying them—not even because the person deceived her in a specific context (a love affair). How can the fundamental axioms be any different when one person instead of another says them? How can the "primacy of existence" or "reason as an absolute" or any other Objectivist truth be any different coming from the mouth of Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden—or David Kelley or Leonard Peikoff (or even some mediocre aspirant to the title of "Objectivist leader" for that matter)? The truth or falsehood of an idea is to be judged by its relationship to reality, not by relationships between people. If ever the concept of "social metaphysics" had any pure referent in reality, it is the premise that an idea changes its true/false meaning depending on who says it. Calling this nonsense Objectivism has to stop.

I sympathize with this point, but I think it misses what Rand et al were driving at. They were not denying that some or all of what Branden said in his recorded lectures could have been a true and accurate presentation of Objectivism. What they were claiming was that they rejected the public claim by NB and AA that his lectures were official Objectivism. There are at least two good reasons for this: (1) NB might have changed some of the material in a revision process after the Split and before making the recordings, and these changes would not have been vetted by Rand et al, so they would not have her official endorsement as accurately representing her philosophy, and it was not the altruistic duty of Rand et al to procure a copy of the new recordings (even if they would have been allowed to) and scour them for deviations from her thought (and/or Branden's previous presentation of it); (2) Rand might have changed some of her ideas or formulations (as she had done while still with Branden, and as she later induced Peikoff to do), and the version marketed by NB and AA would not have been congruent with that, and thus not an accurate presentation of Objectivism as officially formulated and endorsed by Rand. Also, (3) even if the recordings were in no way changed from the lectures as they existed before the Split, Rand could not know that, and even if she could, it was not her duty to know that they were in all relevant details the same.

That said, it was still well within NB's and AA's legal and moral rights -- as the Courts acknowledged -- to market his lectures as being his formulation of Objectivism and to purport that they were the same material as presented by him under the auspices of Nathaniel Branden Institute. The burden would be on Rand et al to show that the recorded lectures were not what they purported to be (i.e., fraudulent). If they didn't care enough to purchase a set of the recordings and go over them with a fine-tooth comb, then it would show that their real concern was not the accuracy of the recorded lectures qua Objectivism. While not their duty to check the lectures for accuracy, it certainly would be in their self-interest to do so, insofar as they had a real concern. The fact that they did not so speaks for itself.

Objectivism is by definition a philosophical system of interconnected principles (Objectivists prefer the word "integrated," but that word is losing its meaning from overuse in inappropriate places, especially for condemnation). There is no way on earth to claim property rights to the identification of true or false. What is true for one is true for all people if reason is the standard. No one can be the owner of that...Mankind has reserved an honor for people who discover true-false relationships. This relationship is called a principle. Mankind attaches their name to the principle. But this is an honor—a way of saying "thank you." It is not property because there is no concrete thing. The idea of Newton owning the law of gravity seems silly, yet his name will forever be associated with "what goes up must come down." Ayn Rand even wrote about the impossibility of ownership of a philosophy in "Patents and Copyrights" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Here is a quote:
It is important to note, in this connection [the material form of ideas], that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the creation of a specific object which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed.

(The part in brackets was added by me to give the context without having to include a full paragraph that did not deal with the point I am discussing.) Like it or not, the copyright of Nathaniel Branden's recorded lectures on Objectivism (meaning the right to use them commercially) belonged to him, not to Ayn Rand. He gave her due credit as originator of the ideas, so he satisfied both legal and moral conditions. He did not plagiarize her, thus it was his property—by Rand's own definition. But it also happened to be the law.

First, I agree that NB's formulation of Objectivism is his intellectual property.

Second, I agree that principles cannot be property. An identification of "what is" or "what should be", once it has been shared with another person, is "free for all." The formulation of a number of identifications into a system of ideas is the intellectual property of the person who does the formulating. Objectivism as formulated in Galt's Speech (in For the New Intellectual, the speech is introduced with the words "This is Objectivism") is Rand's intellectual property. Objectivism as formulated by NB in his lectures is his intellectual property, not Rand's. Objectivism as formulated by Leonard Peikoff in his 1976 lectures and later revised in OPAR (1991) is his intellectual property, not Rand's -- although she did endorse it as the official and best-to-date formulation of her philosophy. Some day, I will have a crack at formulating a systematic presentation of Objectivism as I think it logically hangs together -- correcting what I think are errors by Rand, Branden, Peikoff et al, and adding identifications of my own -- and that will be my intellectual property, not Rand's. As long as the West Coast Church of Objectivism confines its comments to those of the philosophical equivalent of Underwriter's Laboratory and says merely "we reject Mr. Bissell's claim to have formulated a true, accurate, and intellectually reliable version of the Philosophy of Objectivism" and do not further try to legally prevent me from publishing it, that will be just fine.

The attempt to prohibit Branden's commercial use of the lectures can only be seen as an attempt to appropriate the property of another. I emphasize—by Rand's own definition of intellectual property. It gets worse. Saying that Branden's course in Objectivism represented her ideas correctly for over 10 years, but no longer represented them after he was shunned—and then not stipulating which ideas were false or misrepresented, was absurd on the face of it. To my knowledge, Rand never denied the truth-falseness of Branden's property. She merely tried to impede him from exercising his legal and morally correct ownership rights...

The whole flap over the lectures, unless I'm forgetting something major from Holzer's piece in The Objectivist, essentially boiled down to what I call the "barking dog" syndrome. They were trying to rally the troops and discourage them from buying NB's recorded lectures, which couldn't be certified as "genuine Objectivism." Short of a legal charge of fraud, I think they were within their rights to do this, and it probably helped to protect the integrity of Rand's philosophy at least from the point of the Split onward.

I think that the more serious and substantive attempt to interfere with NB's intellectual property rights occurred, about the same time, in regard to his publication of The Psychology of Self-Esteem. As I understand it, they were attempting to legally block him from using his essays from The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, contrary to the verbal agreement between him and Rand. No doubt, some will offer rationalizations that, because NB lied to AR, all "gentlemen's agreements" between them were off, too, but that's B.S. There are lies, and there are breaches of verbal contract -- and a moral wrong does not justify a legal wrong in retaliation. I invite those who disagree to see how long they can stay out of court and/or prison on the opposite assumption!

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember being told that the reason for withholding permission to use the articles was so Branden would not respond to "To Whom It May Concern". I suspect that Miss Rand was afraid that Branden would reveal thier affair. People of course guessed that the affair was the reason for the split.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

The three points you mentioned are given in the "LEGAL NOTICE" drawn up and signed as given below (the right hand bottom of the notice):

—Henry Mark Holzer

Attorney-at-Law

I would presume that since the entry in the May, 1969 issue of The Objectivist was entitled "LEGAL NOTICE," and it was signed as "Attorney-at-Law," it was supposed to deal with some aspect of the law. Instead, it dealt with something else entirely. After informing the readers that Rand had become aware that NB was selling the records, it then went on—as per your three points—to say that she had no involvement in the business. Then came a highly embarrassing statement from any lawyer anywhere in the USA:

If said content is taken from her material, he has no right to use it; if it is not, he has no right to associate her name with it and/or call it Objectivism. Her permission was not sought, and would not have been granted, had it been sought.

Are we talking copyright law here or what? (I can just hear the acolytes saying that this actually was not a notice about law, but a "legal notice" instead and that it was merely signed by an attorney only because that was his profession—that he could have just as easily been a musician or something.)

The clear fact is that this was published as representing legal rights in the first step of legal procedure (notifying the infringing party). That was its legal function.

You mentioned that Rand had no duty to do this or that, but where does such a "duty" come from? The Brandens? Academic Associates? USA copyright law? Her associates? Who or what was making such a claim that she had such "duties"? The only thing I can see is her own wishes. As I understand it, if Rand wished to be certain about something, she most definitely did have a duty to examine it. That duty comes from reality.

In legal terms, her assertions were arbitrary. Those assertions were neither legal nor illegal. They were without cognitive content as law. So what if Branden did not seek her permission to sell his records? He didn't need to. She wasn't part of the deal. The master tapes to the records were his property and he properly referenced Rand as the source of the philosophy presented in the lectures—in lectures that had been presented elsewhere for years. He met both moral and legal requirements.

Throughout the very history of the NBI advertising for the lectures, the following phrase had been included for years: "Prepared by Nathaniel Branden, the lectures are devoted to a presentation of Ayn Rand's philosophy, including aspects not yet covered in her written works—and to Mr. Branden's extension of Objectivism to his own field, psychology, giving special emphasis to the concepts of human nature, mental health and personal development." He was widely known for 10 years and to 35,000 students as the author of those lectures.

I don't agree with you on a fine point. You said you think my analysis "misses what Rand et al were driving at." If it did, if they really were not interested in making a point about legality under a published "LEGAL NOTICE," but had something else they were driving at instead, the only conclusion one can make is that they were... were... were... what? Dishonest? Stupid? Arbitrary?

How about trying to get revenge by a public showing of excommunication, even if they had to misrepresent the law on purpose to do it? Trying to intimidate people under false pretenses?

(Whew!) There. That sounds better.

One of the sillies things I have noticed in the last year-and-a-half of online discussions in the Objectivist culture is that many people spout garbage about the law when they don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. That's another thing that needs to be blasted out of the philosophy. Arm-chair lawyers wanting to tell people what they can't do. In this case, an actual attorney spouted the kind of garbage I have heard. Professionally, there was no excuse for that. And of course it did not stand up anywhere in the US legal system.

I saw no attempt whatsoever by the Brandens to misrepresent themselves as part of Rand's operations. Just for the record, here is the flyer that Jerry Biggers sent me for the 20-record set. (I have other material he generously sent me that I am preparing for display for consultation on OL.) I have given the text below because for easy loading, the image on the Internet is too small for text clarity.

NBAcademicAssociatesPrinciples-web.jpg

Main photo page

Now on Records:

Nathaniel

Branden

lectures on the basic principles of

Objectivism

Once available only through Nathaniel Branden Institute; now offered exclusively in this monumental twenty-album record library

Left page

The famous NBI lectures… attended by 35,000 students in 80 cities... now available exclusively a magnificent 20-album home record library

For ten years—from 1958 to 1968—Mr. Branden’s lectures on “Basic Principles of Objectivism” were given at Nathaniel Branden Institute in New York City and, via tape transcription, to groups in over eighty cities throughout the United States and abroad. More than 35,000 students have attended these lectures. Until now, this course has never been available in any other form.

“Basic Principles of Objectivism” is a detailed, systematic exposition of the philosophy defined by Ayn Rand and introduced in her novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The lectures are devoted to a presentation of Miss Rand’s philosophy—and to Mr. Branden’s application of Objectivism to his own field, psychology. Special emphasis is given to the concepts of human nature, mental health and personal development.

In 1968, Mr. Branden closed NBI to devote his full time to the further development of a psychological system: Biocentric Psychology. He is now living in Los Angeles where, in addition to teaching and research activities, he is engaged in the practice of personal and vocational counseling.

Academic Associates, an educational service corporation, was fortunate in being able to arrange with Mr. Branden for the release of his lectures in recorded form—so that this monumental work may continue to be available for study. The recorded lectures are particularly suitable for playing to clubs, schools, and private gatherings of present and potential students of Objectivism.

With the exception of Lecture Six, which is given by Barbara Branden (lecturer, writer and formerly the administrative director of NBI), all of these lectures are delivered by Nathaniel Branden. Some have been revised and re-recorded, but the course is the same as the lectures originally presented by NBI.

Middle Page

INTRODUCTORY OFFER

Nathaniel Branden’s lectures on “Basic Principles of Objectivism,” previously offered only through Nathaniel Branden Institute, is now available in 20 two-record albums—40 records in all—exclusively from Academic Associates, Inc.

PRICE

Each two-record album will, at a later date, be priced at $10, making the cost of the entire set $200. However, a special introductory price of $150 is available to those who subscribe to the first edition now, in advance of release.

TERMS

The set will be released over the next several months, at monthly intervals, in five groups of four albums each; the first group will be shipped upon receipt of your order. To take advantage of the introductory price, subscribers may send $30 now for the first four lectures, and $30 a month for each additional group of four lectures, until all twenty lectures are paid for.

ADDITIONAL SAVINGS

A 20% cash discount is available to those who send a check or money order now, saving us billing expenses; this lowers the total price to $120. The set will be shipped in groups of four lectures or more, as soon as they are manufactured.

SHIPPING

Orders within the United States will be shipped via the Special Fourth Class Postage Rate for Sound Recordings. For faster shipment, or for foreign or overseas shipments, please add postage. (The postage should be calculated for five separate shipments, each weighing five pounds.)

SALES TAX

California residents please add 5% sales tax.

REFERRALS

Please send as names and addresses of friends who might be interested in receiving announcements of records and books on philosophy and psychology.

Please send orders to:

ACADEMIC ASSOCIATES

INCORPORATED / 8560 Sunset Blvd. / Los Angeles 90069

Where is there any claim in that flyer that Nathaniel Branden (or Barbara) represented anything but his own material based on Rand's philosophy or that Rand sanctioned this or that he was part of her operations?

I get a little wound up about this because something wrong has been introduced into the philosophy contaminating it.

Instead of:

A Philosophy for Living on Earth,

we are getting:

A Philosophy for Telling Others What They are not Allowed to do on Earth.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anytime I see anything involving revisionism, expunging, turning a person into a non-person, I know something stinks. That rule, I believe, has no exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found some of the quotes interesting regarding the 'ownership' of Objectivism.

I've read somewhere that Rand was pissed at the various libertarians because (amoung other things) they were "using" "her" ideas, as if they someone need to get her permission to do so (maybe pay her royalties). To me, it doesn't work that way. Yes, if you're writting a scholarly work, you cite your sources, but you need not get permission or the like. The whole attitude seems strange to me.

I almost wonder if we have to say: Objectivism © ® ™ (sm) The Ayn Rand Estate, used with permission or the like. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few months later, we received a letter from Holzer, on behalf of Rand and her associates, saying that the copyrights to Nathaniel's material would be released if and only if Nathaniel and I promised, in writing, never to speak about our break with Rand, never to write about it, and never to speak or write about her article denouncing us, "To Whom It May Concern."

Blech. I'm always astonished at the fact that Rand would stoop to blackmail to protect her image.

This brings to mind something I ponder now and again about the "break"...it seems to me that this example (and many others) suggest that Rand was demanding--quite explicitly--for someone else to live their life FOR THE SAKE OF HERS.

I don't see how there can be *any* ethical right for Rand to make the above demand of Nathaniel, since quite obviously, the affair and the "break" were as much a part of *his* life, as Rand's (it would be quite different, were she demanding the same of some detached third-party).

Also, with the above attitude of Rand's in mind, I can't help but think that she would be horrified (and furious) that her personal journals on the matter have been published (with some total stranger whimsically drawing conclusions from her own most private thoughts).

RCR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No freakin' doubt, RCR! Ptui!

I like where you were going talking about AR wanting things done on her behalf. It surely seems that she felt her brood held certain obligations. What I get from what you say is that this implies she was hypocritical of her own work? Not suprising, really. Even that doesn't take much away from her, at least for me.

rde

If you told me she was a dirty little whore, I'd ask you what color dress she had on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few months ago on SOLOP, Kenny ascribed many of the actions of the Ayn Rand Institute to a desire to "protect the Rand brand."

I doubt he meant that literally.

But some people act as though all of Rand's books carry an "Ayn Rand ™." Kind of like "Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" ™.

Problem is, I can see the TM on one of Elvira's productions.

I can't see it on anything by Ayn Rand.

Is this because I forgot my Captain Midnight Magic Decoder Ring again?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No freakin' doubt, RCR! Ptui!

I like where you were going talking about AR wanting things done on her behalf. It surely seems that she felt her brood held certain obligations. What I get from what you say is that this implies she was hypocritical of her own work? Not surprising, really. Even that doesn't take much away from her, at least for me.

I definitely think the example from BB in this thread shows Rand to be MORE than hypocritical; with that demand, she betrayed her own oath and became unethical, if not immoral.

We all make mistakes in the fog of a broken relationship (lord knows I have), and no, Rand's unethical reaction to Nathaniel and Barbara ought not take away from the brilliance of her work. (But, it clearly shows that NO ONE is "perfectly moral", and to pretend that there is such a human state is patently delusional).

RCR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RCR,

Why do you think Leonard Peikoff chose Jim Valliant, who never knew Ayn Rand and has no understanding whatsoever of her sexual psychology, to release Rand's private journals to?

Of course, this doesn't excuse Dr. Peikoff, or anyone else who actually knew Rand yet has been involved in turning her into a Platonic ideal.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ARIenvelope.jpg

Does Leonard Peikoff actually think he owns Objectivism? Does he own the words "Ayn Rand"? I recently received an ARI mailing and I noticed the odd placing of the ® (registered trademark symbol) in their name. One would expect it to be after the word Institute, but they put it after the word Rand in the middle of the organization's name, making it appear as though they have actually trademarked Ayn Rand's name.

I do not recognize Leonard Peikoff as the intellectual heir of Ayn Rand, although I recognize him as the legal heir in terms of ownership of her copyrights. As far as I know, he has never been named intellectual heir by Miss Rand as she had formally named Nathaniel Branden. Peikoff's rise is to a great degree due to the Brandens' fall from grace and being the last one standing when Rand's time was up. Do you think the acolytes will ever realize that he didn't inherit her brain along with all the papers and copyrights?

Nobody owns Objectivism. Nobody owns capitalism. These type of things are not to be owned. I do not recognize ARI as the official voice of Objectivist thought, just an Objectivist group saying that they are.

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kat,

If Leonard Peikoff and The Estate had actually registered Ayn Rand's name as a trademark, there would be no Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 'cause no way would he have authorized its use by heretics.

And Tara Smith would have had to acknowledge The Estate's permission to title her book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. There is no such acknowledgment in her book.

It looks to me as though they trademarked "Ayn Rand Institute" and are playing fast and loose.

As though anyone should be surprised by that...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now