My favorite Nathaniel Branden "one-liners"

[Roger Bissell]

Dear Branden fans:

I'm trying something a bit different with this post. I'm going to gradually re-read and peruse my Nathaniel Branden books and select my favorite one-sentence statements by him, listing them here along with the essay or chapter of the book they appear in. (I'm calling them "one-liners," but obviously some of them are more Kantianesque than pithy. I will continue to edit and re-edit this post, adding more worthy statements and sources as I go.

Readers are encouraged to (1) comment on any of these statements, and (2) post their own favorite NB statements (with source, please!). I will incorporate ones I like into later editions of this post. (And I will tend to shy away from ones that require editing, deleting words, bracketed clarifications, etc.)

==============================================

My #1 pick: "Rational awareness is not the 'cold hand' that kills; it is the power that liberates." (Read chapter 5, "Emotions," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.)

"There is no value-judgment more important to man -- no factor more decisive in his psychological development and motivation-- than the estimate he passes on himself." (Read chapter 7, "The Nature and Source of Self-Esteem" in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.)

"No evasion, no defense-values, no strategy of self-deception can ever provide a man with a substitute for authentic self-esteem." (Read chapter 8, "Pseudo-Self-Esteem," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.)

From the same chapter, a very long and very eloquent sentence: "Let a man tell himself that self-esteem is to be earned, not by the fullest exercise of his intellect,but by its abandonment in submission to faith; let him hold that efficacy is attained, not by thinking, but by confirmity to the beliefs of others; let him hold that efficacy consists of gaining love; let him believe that his basic worth is to be measured by the number of women he sleeps with; or by the number of women he doesn't sleep with; or by the people he can manipulate; or by the nobility of his dreams; or by the money he gives away; or by the sacrifices he makes; let him renounce the world; let him lie on a bed of nails -- but whatever he may expect to achieve, be it a moment's self-forgetfulness or a temporary illusion of virtue or a temporary amelioration of guilt, he will not achieve self-esteem."

"A cheerful neurotic, confident of his ability to deal successfully with life, is a contradiction in terms." (Read chapter 9, "Pathological Anxiety: A Crisis of Self-Esteem," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.)

"If and when the price of 'harmony' with his fellow men becomes the surrender of his mind, a psychologically healthy man does not pay it; nothing can be a benefit to him at that cost." (Read chapter 10, "Social Metaphysics," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.)

My favorite in a chapter full of great statements: "The essence of the romantic love response is: 'I see you as a person, and because you are what you are, I desire you for my sexual happiness." (Read chapter 11, "Self-Esteem and Romantic Love," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.)

Another very long and very eloquent sentence: "If a patient must be taught that the frustations, the despair, the wreckage of his life are ultimately traceable to his deficiency of self-esteem and to the policies that led to that deficiency, it is equally imperative that he be taught the solultion: that supreme expression of selfishness and self-assertiveness which consists of holding his self-esteem as his highest value and most exalted concern--and of knowing that each struggling step upward, taken in the name of that value, carries him further from the bondage to his past suffering and closer to the sunlight reality of the human potential." (Read chapter 12, "Psychotherapy," in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.)(Note: shouldn't that be "sunlit reality"?)

From the same chapter (thanks, Glenn!): "To introduce into one's consciousness a major and fundamental idea that cannot be so integrated, an idea not derived from reality, not validated by a process of reason, not subject to rational examination or judgment - and worse: an idea that clashes with the rest of one's concepts and understanding of reality - is to sabotage the integrative function of consciousness, to undercut the rest of one's convictions and kill one's capacity to be certain of anything."

In "Our Urgent Need for Self-Esteem," posted at www.nathanielbranden.com/ess/ess12.html (thanks Rich!): "To be self-responsible is to recognize that we are the author of our choices and actions; that we must be the ultimate source of our own fulfillment; that no one is coming to make our life right for us, or make us happy, or give us self-esteem."

===========================================

OK, you get the idea? Comments, suggestions, questions are all welcome!

Best 2 all,

REB

[Glenn Fletcher]

Roger,

I like this idea. If I may, I'd like to contribute one. From The Psychology of Self-Esteem, Chapter 12, p. 240 in the paperback edition. (This was italicized in the original text.)

To introduce into one's consciousness a major and fundamental idea that cannot be so integrated, an idea not derived from reality, not validated by a process of reason, not subject to rational examination or judgment - and worse: an idea that clashes with the rest of one's concepts and understanding of reality - is to sabotage the integrative function of consciousness, to undercut the rest of one's convictions and kill one's capacity to be certain of anything.

Thanks,

Glenn

[Roger Bissell]

Glenn, very nice quote, thank you. I put it into the hopper right away!

Folks, please feel free to comment on any of these quotes. You can reply to this thread or try to start up a new thread, if it seems to you to warrant a fresh topic on its own.

Having fun yet? :-)

REB

[Rich Engle]

"No one is coming."

I saw him work that like a riff when I heard him lecture at the Toronto Learning Annex. Obviously, it has to do with the basic fact that you have to take care of your own things...

He has great one-liners. I've had some emails from him that were one-worders... 8)

[Ciro]

Roger, this is what NB, answered to many of my questions on consciousness. NB: What is energy "constituted" of? If consciousness is a primary, then it is not constituted of something other than consciousness.

NB.

Ciro.

[Ciro]

Dear, Ciro, remember: you learn more listening than by talking. So don't rush to defend yourself. Just listen...and see what you can learn.

Nathaniel Branden

Roger, I made good use of this one that's for sure!

[Roger Bissell]

Ciro, thanks for sharing those one-liners NB wrote to you. Since they're not in print, I won't include them above, but it's nice that you shared them.

Best 2 all,

REB

[Ciro]

Roger about: To be out in front means sometimes to be alone. A leader must know and accept this responsibility.

We cannot lead others where we are afraid to go ourselves.

From self-esteem at work.

CD

[Kat]

The Art of Living Consciously is full of little gems like....

"Living consciously is an act of love for one's own positive possibilities. It is an act of commitment to one's value as a person and to the importance of one's life."

"Our inner world, too, is part of reality."

"We must choose to think."

"Doing more of what doesn't work, doesn't work."

"To be is to be something."

"Self-acceptance is the foundation of growth and change."

[Roger Bissell]

The Art of Living Consciously is full of little gems like....

...

"Our inner world, too, is part of reality."

...

"Doing more of what doesn't work, doesn't work."

...

I especially like the two I sequestered from your quote, Kat.

The first one reminds me that there must be some mode of

awareness, that operates by some physical means, for our

internal world. The second reminds me not to slip into the

crazy patterns of the past that only brought me suffering

and misery.

I'll be posting some more to my above list soon, and I'll

include your suggestions from that book when I do, Kat.

Thanks!

Best,

REB

[Dragonfly]

"We must choose to think"

Well, that's one of my Objectivist pet peeves, you cannot choose to think. To "choose" already implies thinking.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

I know exactly what you mean. "Interpreting" a quote is no excuse for a lack of clarity, which usually happens with sweeping general statements. But I have always put that quote about choosing to think within a context of ethics, not metaphysics or epistemology.

In other essays and books, both Rand and NB have stated that if you do not direct your thinking, it will happen in a haphazard manner, i.e., you cannot choose whether you think or not. You can choose how you use your rational faculty, though.

I get pretty bored with the Randroid approach that I have come across, which takes choice, and not biology, down to a first cause (metaphysics). Obviously we all start to think, integrate concepts, react with emotions and the whole kit-and-caboodle because we are born with a biological organ that is made to do that - and it will work to some extent whether we want it to or not.

We can choose to discipline it, though (ethics). Thus we can choose to think (mostly, use our rational faculty, but there are other forms of mental focus), as opposed to let it drift without our inner guidance when rational thought it required. Depending on the situation, choosing to not think can be a very stupid decision.

Thus, I take this quote to be a moral decision where options are possible, not a metaphysical or epistemological one, where the thinking capacity is automatic and comes built into the organism.

Michael

[Inky]

I had a friend who wanted to be both a hippie and an Objectivist. He wrote NB asking if this was possible. The response was "Just as long as you're not a Communist."

[Dragonfly]

I discovered that I also have a favorite Branden quote (from: The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand):

“How can you call it dogmatic religion when we can prove every one of Ayn Rand’s propositions?!” My answer to that is, “The hell you can!”

There are a lot of Objectivists who should take that to heart!

[Glenn Fletcher]

Roger,

Here's a quote I almost forgot; I carry it around in my wallet. It's from The Psychology of Self-Esteem, last paragraph of Chapter 6:

To preserve an unclouded capacity for the enjoyment of life, is an unusual moral and psychological achievement. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the prerogative of mindlessness, but the exact opposite: it is the reward of self-esteem.

Thanks,

Glenn

[Roger Bissell]

Thanks, Dragonfly and Glenn, those are good quotes!

REB

[gary williams]

"Doing more of what doesn't work, doesn't work"

Gawd, I don't know how many people I'd like to pound that into!

gw

[Peter]

Gee she’s mean. Joke. I never could out-argue Ellen. And no, I am not fixated on her. She's everywhere I tell ya. I was just using different key words to find something readable and this thread popped up and ES happened to be there.  Peter

From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: The reluctant Objectivist, Ellen Stuttle Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:25:14 -0500. Boy, you do have a way of causing trouble, don't you, Peter? (You've succeeded at getting me irritated, much to the amusement, I'd imagine, of some who are aware that I don't want to be spending my time these days immersed in ATL debates.)

You say: >The following letter that you wrote about the "break-up" within Objectivism and the feelings of Ellen Moore exemplifies many of the thoughts experienced by Objectivists during those times of turmoil and those feelings persist until this very day. Do you presume your professed thoughts are not those of an Objectivist?

No, the letter from me which you quoted does not exemplify the thoughts experienced by Objectivists "during those times of turmoil."  I think that you didn't read the letter very carefully.  Let's take some details.

Consider this statement: "I hadn't known any Objectivists in the Midwest..."

For one who is aware of the niceties of grammar, that says that I was NOT including myself in the category "Objectivists."  Notice, I didn't write, as I would have if I had considered myself "an Objectivist," that I hadn't known any *other* Objectivists. I remember writing the post you quote, and I remember considering the details of how to phrase the opening.  In the context at the time on the list, I didn't want to get bogged down in the story of my own prior-to-moving-to-New-York acquaintance with Objectivism and Objectivists; thus I contented myself with hoping that those reading would be sensitive to the grammatical detail of my not saying "other" Objectivists; also, I slightly fudged in saying that I hadn't "known" any Objectivists.  I selected the word "known" as implying "having some extended acquaintance with."  In fact I had "met" a few people who considered themselves Objectivists, at a party I attended, as a result of having gotten into a conversation on the "el" (the Chicago area commuter transit) with one of them and then having been invited to the party.  I was not impressed by the way those people acted, and didn't continue the acquaintance.

You write:  > Well, my Dear Ellen, you may think again. I felt the same as you, bewildered and befuddled, and I am an Objectivist. I felt the same as Ellen Moore for a few years, and after leaving the army (with the good conduct medal and a few other souvenirs) around 1970, I was walking around Madison Bowl, near the Rotunda at the University of Virginia. I was discussing "the letter" with a fellow Objectivist and we were both bitter, mostly towards Nathan.

You're projecting your feelings into my mind, and, again, not attending to what I wrote.  I said nothing about feeling "bewildered and befuddled." Instead I spoke of dismayed shock -- and notice TOWARD WHOM I felt "dismayed and escalating shock":  Ayn Rand, not the Brandens.

I shall add something to the story.  The essence of why I was horrified by AR's behavior is because I thought, as I stated in the post, "that Ayn Rand had revealed exactly what she was trying to hide (the nature of her feelings for Nathaniel Branden."  I was appalled that she could be such a damn fool as to have published the article. As I read the article, the words of the subtext spoke loudly to me -- "Hell hath no fury."  I thought that it was obvious what was upsetting her, and I expected that everyone else would find it obvious too. I was subsequently surprised to find out that numerous of her followers believed it happened as she said it did.

(I'll add, I suspected even before I moved to New York that she was romantically interested in Nathan, so the fact of the interest didn't surprise me, only the way she handled herself.)

Second, you describe yourself as having "felt the same as Ellen Moore for a few years."  I did not feel "the same as Ellen Moore" for even two minutes.

Here's some further detail of what happened after I read the statement. I didn't say in the post you quoted *where* I was when I was reading it. I was at the offices of NBI.  I'd happened to meet the typesetter for *The Objectivist*, and she'd invited me to come keep her company while she typeset "To Whom It May Concern."  Thus I read it literally hot off the press.  The typesetter herself reacted in the same way I did, with a feeling of being appalled at AR's foolishness.  Upon finishing her work, she went into Barbara's office to commiserate with Barbara.  I was left sitting in the waiting room.  A man was there at the desk -- a man who I subsequently learned was Bob Berole.  I murmured, as the time stretched on while the typesetter was closeted with Barbara, "I wish that I could meet Barbara."  He brightened up -- he'd been looking depressed -- and said "You want to meet Barbara?!"  His question was audibly punctuated like that, with a tone of surprise. Only later did I understand why:  because almost no one was willing to speak to Barbara during those days.  He forthwith almost catapulted, rather than conducted, me into Barbara's office. "This girl wants to meet you!" he said to Barbara.  Barbara had an expression of surprise at the abrupt interruption of her talk with Julie (the typesetter), and I'd imagine that I looked pretty surprised, too, as a result of the speed of my injection into Barbara's office.  Then, recovering, I noticed that she had the galley proofs in her hand.  I pointed to them and said, "That's awful; I'm so sorry; I wonder what you're going to do about it." In sum, at no time did I "share Ellen Moore's feelings," as you describe yourself as having done. Ellen S.

From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Note to Peter T. Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:36:26 -0600 Peter, in case you misunderstand: The fact that I discussed events and ideas with Barbara Branden does not mean that I sanction her actions.  I told her exactly what I think, and she responded in her own way.  Nothing was resolved.  I refused to meet with her. And, yes, I know her better than I did in the '60's, but my judgment remains the same today as it did after Rand repudiated each of the Brandens.  I had the opportunity to re-evaluate all the facts, and the integrity of my earlier judgments remain un-breached, and unchanged. I was exceptionally insightful and thorough the first, and the second, time round. Ellen M.

From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Reluctant non-objectivist – ES Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:36:11 -0600 Revealing story? I'll say it is. ES never writes a line that she cannot back out of by rationalizing all her other possibly substituted meanings.  That's the joy of what language means to her.

Just think of that young girl, coming to NYC, never "knowing any Objectivists" she could like, and bringing with her a pre-formed, emotionally "suspected" bias against AR, and with an inexperienced, psychological loyalty ran straight to NBI to those others not known by her either - the Brandens. That's not reasoning based on facts, that's the emotion of simpering silliness.  It means that some people _think_ "what is"  is really what isn't.

One thing surely is accurate: ES wrote, "I did not feel "the same as Ellen Moore" for even two minutes."

ES has never objectively reasoned about the obvious facts of that case, or ever even felt about it, as Ellen Moore has - and that's a fact of which I'm very proud. Ellen M. 

[Peter]

I looked for the number of threads I saved with the initials Ghs and it was 127. Ellen Moore, who used to teach Objectivism with a big “O” just over 200. Roger Bissell, just over 200. Curious, I searched Stuttle and I had 82 hits, and 28 from Brant, I believe going back to 2001. However, some of the thread "headings" I saved are composed of more than one thread . . . so there may be more than those numbers I just typed. Each thread may have had multiple responses from those named. And I have a feeling I have temporarily forgotten other’s names. But I will ponder on it. If you used to write to OWL or Atlantis, I will research your name or pseudonym used just to see what I saved. Peter