Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

I sent Schwartz an e-mail telling him that I would no longer be able to write for his newsletter. (I didn't bother to explain why at the time, knowing full well that he'd understand the reason within weeks.)

Was there email then?

If you Google my name you will find postings I made to Ft Freedom in 1988. While this is now on the Internet, then I had to call a dedicated phone line set up by the site operator Petr Beckmann. I used a Kaypro computer I still own with a 300 baud internal modem. To read Ft. Freedom, you watched the text print on your screen not much faster than a typewriter could. I soon upgraded to a 1200 baud external modem. Passion was published in 1986. In 1988 there was no email as we know it today. In 1995 AOL was going crazy mailing out millions of CDs with its free software. 56,000 baud max.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Robert,

I talked to a college student recently who never had vinyl LPs. Made me feel old.

Even now, it is hard to imagine life without the internet and e-mail.

-NEIL

____

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I talked to a college student recently who never had vinyl LPs. Made me feel old.

Even now, it is hard to imagine life with the internet and e-mail.

Yes, very hard to imagine, especially if you don't have to. Heh.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant:" I used a Kaypro computer..."

I'm delighted to hear it. My first computer, in 1981 or 1982, was a Kaypro, but when I mention it today, no one has ever heard of it. I remember, with a shudder, the instruction book; it was about a foot thick, and totally unintelligible. For the first few weeks, I wanted nothing more than to throw the computer out my window and begin writing with a quill pen. But when I finally began to understand it, at least enough to function, I was in love! From then on, whenever I saw someone I knew, they were treated to twenty minutes on the glories of my computer, whether they wanted to hear it or not.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant:" I used a Kaypro computer..."

I'm delighted to hear it. My first computer, in 1981 or 1982, was a Kaypro, but when I mention it today, no one has ever heard of it. I remember, with a shudder, the instruction book; it was about a foot thick, and totally unintelligible. For the first few weeks, I wanted nothing more than to throw the computer out my window and begin writing with a quill pen. But when I finally began to understand it, at least enough to function, I was in love! From then on, whenever I saw someone I knew, they were treated to twenty minutes on the glories of my computer, whether they wanted to hear it or not.

Barbara,

Then you wrote Passion using a Kaypro with Wordstar or changed over to an IBM PC or early Apple?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen: "In one of his lecture courses, I think "The Art of Reasoning," he [Leonard] talks about this and says -- and recommends as a method (gasp!!!) -- that he had to learn to suppress his questions [...].

Ellen, I'm stunned by this. Does anyone have -- or can anyone get -- the exact quote?

Barbara

The exact quote is pretty long, since he elaborated on the subject for awhile. The first question is which course it was in, then which lecture. Then if you could manage to get the tape....

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant:" I used a Kaypro computer..."

I'm delighted to hear it. My first computer, in 1981 or 1982, was a Kaypro, but when I mention it today, no one has ever heard of it. I remember, with a shudder, the instruction book; it was about a foot thick, and totally unintelligible. For the first few weeks, I wanted nothing more than to throw the computer out my window and begin writing with a quill pen. But when I finally began to understand it, at least enough to function, I was in love! From then on, whenever I saw someone I knew, they were treated to twenty minutes on the glories of my computer, whether they wanted to hear it or not.

Barbara

The first computer I owned (as distinct from using mainframes at the university where I did my graduate studies (SMU) or was employed in the professorial ranks early in my career (Texas A & M and then University of Florida) )was an Apple II Plus. Memory (RAM) was 48K. For the very young list, that's not a typo - the memory was 48K. I can recall making a 1.5 hour drive to get a memory expansion card to increase the memory to 64K, and having friends and colleagues come over to marvel at this wonderful and powerful possession - a computer with 64K memory.

Somewhere in there I moved up to an Apple IIe, then a Macintosh(one of the very earliest "Fat Macs"), . . .

Pleasant memories,

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited by Bill P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen: "In one of his lecture courses, I think "The Art of Reasoning," he [Leonard] talks about this and says -- and recommends as a method (gasp!!!) -- that he had to learn to suppress his questions [...].

Ellen, I'm stunned by this. Does anyone have -- or can anyone get -- the exact quote?

Barbara

The exact quote is pretty long, since he elaborated on the subject for awhile. The first question is which course it was in, then which lecture. Then if you could manage to get the tape....

Ellen

___

Ellen -

I've heard this, and know I have it on CD-ROM. But, like you, I don't recall if it was in Art of Thinking or perhaps one of his many ones with titles such as Understanding Objectivism, etc... If you can recall for certain which course AND rough lecture number, it will be relatively easy to look it up.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exact quote is pretty long, since he elaborated on the subject for awhile. The first question is which course it was in, then which lecture. Then if you could manage to get the tape....

Ellen -

I've heard this, and know I have it on CD-ROM. But, like you, I don't recall if it was in Art of Thinking or perhaps one of his many ones with titles such as Understanding Objectivism, etc... If you can recall for certain which course AND rough lecture number, it will be relatively easy to look it up.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Are the CD-ROMs searchable? If so, search on "suppress" (I still can hear his voice tones enunciating that word). I think it was in "Art of Reasoning" (or, you might be right that the title was "Art of Thinking"), not in "Understanding Objectivism," so if you can search by a word try the first one first.

E-

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The exact quote is pretty long, since he elaborated on the subject for awhile. The first question is which course it was in, then which lecture. Then if you could manage to get the tape....

Ellen -

I've heard this, and know I have it on CD-ROM. But, like you, I don't recall if it was in Art of Thinking or perhaps one of his many ones with titles such as Understanding Objectivism, etc... If you can recall for certain which course AND rough lecture number, it will be relatively easy to look it up.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Are the CD-ROMs searchable? If so, search on "suppress" (I still can hear his voice tones enunciating that word). I think it was in "Art of Reasoning" (or, you might be right that the title was "Art of Thinking"), not in "Understanding Objectivism," so if you can search by a word try the first one first.

E-

___

They are not searchable. I misspoke - they are audio CDs.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen: "In one of his lecture courses, I think "The Art of Reasoning," he [Leonard] talks about this and says -- and recommends as a method (gasp!!!) -- that he had to learn to suppress his questions [...].

Ellen, I'm stunned by this. Does anyone have -- or can anyone get -- the exact quote?

Barbara

The exact quote is pretty long, since he elaborated on the subject for awhile. The first question is which course it was in, then which lecture. Then if you could manage to get the tape....

Ellen

___

Ellen and Barbara -

I think this is the section being discussed. It is early in the course The Art of Thinking (Disc 1 out of 15):

"You have to go through an interim period, after you know the proof of the right ideas, where you say "I'm not asking those questions, I am not voicing those doubts, I am turning off that whole context even though I want to pursue it. Even though I feel it is essential to my being clear about this issue. I am resisting this feeling – I look at it as neurotic or diseased or at minimum erroneous. In any event it is a part of my thought which is built in but which I am in process of repudiating. Now if you follow that process, ultimately you will automatize, stabilize, institutionalize the right context. And then when you return to the old questions, doubts and problems you will undoubtedly have the experience that I did, because I went through this experience many times – had all these burning questions, but I said I am going to get Objectivism, to hell with all those questions, I just won't ask them, and it was almost like they were "banned in Boston" and they couldn't come up. But then of course I was conscientious, I never forgot what they were, I just didn't think about them. When I finally did get Objectivism solid in my mind, I returned to those old questions you know with a certain degree of trepidation that well, now I am ready to take them on and I found that the great majority seemed puerile to me, pointless, silly, needless."

I hope that helps,

In the second CD, he goes on quite a bit about this. Suppress those things, tell them "die and shrivel up." I'm not inclined to continue to transcribe. If more specific questions arise, let me know and I'll try to provide some further quotes.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the second CD, he goes on quite a bit about this. Suppress those things, tell them "die and shrivel up." I'm not inclined to continue to transcribe. If more specific questions arise, let me know and I'll try to provide some further quotes.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Bill, yes indeed, what you're reporting is just what I was talking about -- although, I didn't hear the part you quoted (eyes rolled, GAAK!). The part I heard I suppose was from "the second CD, [in which] he goes on quite a bit about this. Suppress those things [etc.]."

I sent an email to my friend who brought the tape asking if he recalls which lecture he played for us, but I might not get any quick reply; he's often away from home giving courses himself (good ones) on thinking methods.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next...

I have a thought experiment to propose for those who have read Ayn's journal entries in PARC:

Suppose...

Suppose that, when Ayn wanted to resume the affair, Nathaniel had said blunt words to this effect:

"Ayn, you're too old, and you're too moralistic to boot -- a characteristic which dampens one's ardor. You mostly don't turn me on anymore. Meanwhile, I've become attracted to Patrecia and have started an affair with her."

What do you suppose the result would have been?

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next...

I have a thought experiment to propose for those who have read Ayn's journal entries in PARC:

Suppose...

Suppose that, when Ayn wanted to resume the affair, Nathaniel had said blunt words to this effect:

"Ayn, you're too old, and you're too moralistic to boot -- a characteristic which dampens one's ardor. You mostly don't turn me on anymore. Meanwhile, I've become attracted to Patrecia and have started an affair with her."

What do you suppose the result would have been?

Ellen

___

Ellen -

For NB's supposings on this, read My Years With Ayn Rand.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen -

For NB's supposings on this, read My Years With Ayn Rand.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Bill, um... Repeat maybe of earlier similar occurrences; maybe that "Ellen" opening wasn't meant to instruct me to read MYWAR. In case it was meant thus:

I've read it. I've corresponded with Nathaniel at length about it. I compared in detail line by line the first and second versions of his memoir. I'm not asking for Nathaniel's supposings. I'm asking for the gut reactions of the reader of Ayn's journals. What do you feel, immediate "gut" reaction, would have occurred?

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen -

For NB's supposings on this, read My Years With Ayn Rand.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Bill, um... Repeat maybe of earlier similar occurrences; maybe that "Ellen" opening wasn't meant to instruct me to read MYWAR. In case it was meant thus:

I've read it. I've corresponded with Nathaniel at length about it. I compared in detail line by line the first and second versions of his memoir. I'm not asking for Nathaniel's supposings. I'm asking for the gut reactions of the reader of Ayn's journals. What do you feel, immediate "gut" reaction, would have occurred?

Ellen

___

Ellen -

My way of expressing myself seems to be a distraction here (again). Sorry about that. I was not attempting to imply you hadn't read MYWAR. My intent was to communicate: "NB's interpretation, which is surely relevant since he had a LOT more data than either of us, is that the explosion would have happened in such a case."

My gut reaction - massive explosion would have happened. Would it have been any worse? Probably not, long term anyhow. But did what so many of us have done on one thing or another in our lives - not confront something and let the situation decay day after day until the situation comes out in the open anyhow.

When I read Judgment Day the first time (and MYWAR later) I was definitely gripped with the drama of the narrative - and the sense of being trapped which NB reports feeling.

ANd my reading of Rand's journals, years later, only served to reinforce that initial impression.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited by Bill P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next...

I have a thought experiment to propose for those who have read Ayn's journal entries in PARC:

Suppose...

Suppose that, when Ayn wanted to resume the affair, Nathaniel had said blunt words to this effect:

"Ayn, you're too old, and you're too moralistic to boot -- a characteristic which dampens one's ardor. You mostly don't turn me on anymore. Meanwhile, I've become attracted to Patrecia and have started an affair with her."

What do you suppose the result would have been?

I find this offensive, Ellen. He'd still be a confessed liar. You are ripping these people out of their contexts just like PARC did; for a "thought experiment"? Both Barbara's biography and Nathaniel's memoir don't do this. He should have told her the truth as it was appropriate over time, not saved everything up in a truck of falsehoods to be dumped on her all at once. The basic problem was that Rand's mind was so powerful she could create a separate reality not just for Atlas Shrugged and its readers, but in her private life that was a gross distortion of natural human reality that they lived in as best they could, she more successfully than he--until the artificial construct blew up in their faces. The problem isn't that there shouldn't have been an affair. The problem is that these people thought themselves into their relationships but that they couldn't think their way out of them. Seduced by the mind, trapped by hormones. By the nature of their relationship NB had to be John Galt to AR's Ayn Rand. But she was the only real person in that. She effectively demanded he be an artificial person for at least the last 14 years of their relationship and she really didn't understand what was going on. It was her way or the highway. She needed and wanted his lies because she needed and wanted a John Galt and he did all he could to keep the puppet show going. When NB told BB what was going on, Barbara must have been suddenly aware that they were sitting on a bomb--everybody, everything. Somebody like Valliant now comes along and opines in effect that Barbara was morally deficient in not going to Ayn with the "truth," which would have exploded that bomb. The "truth" of course, was that Atlas Shrugged was a false god, not in all parts, but in the general human reality.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next...

I have a thought experiment to propose for those who have read Ayn's journal entries in PARC:

Suppose...

Suppose that, when Ayn wanted to resume the affair, Nathaniel had said blunt words to this effect:

"Ayn, you're too old, and you're too moralistic to boot -- a characteristic which dampens one's ardor. You mostly don't turn me on anymore. Meanwhile, I've become attracted to Patrecia and have started an affair with her."

What do you suppose the result would have been?

I find this offensive, Ellen. He'd still be a confessed liar. You are ripping these people out of their contexts just like PARC did; for a "thought experiment"? Both Barbara's biography and Nathaniel's memoir don't do this. He should have told her the truth as it was appropriate over time, not saved everything up in a truck of falsehoods to be dumped on her all at once. The basic problem was that Rand's mind was so powerful she could create a separate reality not just for Atlas Shrugged and its readers, but in her private life that was a gross distortion of natural human reality that they lived in as best they could, she more successfully than he--until the artificial construct blew up in their faces. The problem isn't that there shouldn't have been an affair. The problem is that these people thought themselves into their relationships but that they couldn't think their way out of them. Seduced by the mind, trapped by hormones. By the nature of their relationship NB had to be John Galt to AR's Ayn Rand. But she was the only real person in that. She effectively demanded he be an artificial person for at least the last 14 years of their relationship and she really didn't understand what was going on. It was her way or the highway. She needed and wanted his lies because she needed and wanted a John Galt and he did all he could to keep the puppet show going. When NB told BB what was going on, Barbara must have been suddenly aware that they were sitting on a bomb--everybody, everything. Somebody like Valliant now comes along and opines in effect that Barbara was morally deficient in not going to Ayn with the "truth," which would have exploded that bomb. The "truth" of course, was that Atlas Shrugged was a false god, not in all parts, but in the general human reality.

--Brant

Brant -

I agree that NB should have told the truth sooner. A reading of JD and MYWAR reveals that he concurs, though he had no hope that would have averted the storm.

I'm not certain about what it is you find offensive in what Ellen said/asked. Can you clarify?

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

I can answer that. If read in a certain manner, Ellen's imagined scenario seems to belittle the people involved. (I don't think this was her intent.)

One thing always should be kept in mind. Not one of the four (in my analysis from everything I have read, and from knowing Barbara and Nathaniel) was trying to con the others at root. On the contrary, they were all shooting for the best life had to offer as they understood it.

These were people who made a grave error, but they tried to live their values (in reality) according to the highest moral standards in the manner Rand devised. The error was accepting the incomplete psychological nature of human beings Rand also insisted on, which bled over from her fiction, where it worked, to reality, where it only worked partially.

When reality came knocking and presented a situation that was not in the script, they were at a loss about what to do. This, I believe, is the real reason Nathaniel was unable to make a decision and ended up lying to her. Rand wrote in her journals that she was literally too much for him. There is a sense in which this view is correct.

I speculate, but I think Nathaniel might have believed this on a very deep level at one time, especially during some severe bickering and when his feelings for Patrecia started surging. There is nothing in Rand's literature or morality to deal with these instances, yet they both cause powerful emotions.

In Rand's world, heroes do not bicker. On the contrary, the judge in Galt's Gultch did not have anything to do. There are no fundamental disagreements among rational men. And so on. But as anyone who participates on an Internet forum can attest, there are times you cannot get the bickering out of your mind if someone you respect (or even someone you don't) starts attacking you.

So what do you do if the person you hold as a moral guide and example of moral perfection starts attacking you with petty bickering and on a person basis? (Especially the "you know, your problem is..." variety.) I know what that feels like and I also know that when I thought as I used to think, in Nathaniel's shoes, I would feel very deeply unworthy for feeling the overpowering resentment that comes unbidden in this situation. Looking at reality from that frame of mind, such a person as Rand could never prompt feelings of resentment by the very perfection of her. So, obviously, the problem would have to be me.

I can't think of a better recipe to kill romantic love.

Then, to cap it off, what do you do if you sincerely believe that you are an emotional freak for feeling inappropriate love for someone unworthy when compared against what you deem to be perfection? I do not envy Nathaniel's past, although I have had my own heartaches of like nature.

When people condemn Nathaniel, I wonder what they would have done in his shoes. I know what many say they would have done, but I have lived long enough to know that this doesn't mean much when the crap hits the fan. And, just observing online behavior, I feel confident in speculating on who would break and who would not, but I keep that to myself. There are real heroes out there who don't even know they are heroes, but I would trust them with my life, and there are some loud-mouths who would surprise themselves at how fast they would sell-out.

Enough of that. I have a more positive speculation, one about Nathaniel. It is speculation based on observing him develop a brilliant career. People who are sleazy are usually sleazy in other areas of their life and I do not see that in his work. On the contrary, I see a brilliant mind that developed and is developing theories in his field, one that implemented them according to the highest integrity possible.

So here goes my speculation. I believe Nathaniel would have acted differently with Rand if he had known what the right thing to do was. He literally didn't know what to do. His premises, so to speak, had not prepared him for the nature of the conflicts reality presented him with. He was suddenly left groping for manners of how to deal with issues like bickering and aging and being held up as a hero to everyone, but feeling "unworthy" emotions, and desperately wanting to be one thing, but feeling surges of emotions belonging to another, and so on.

I sincerely believe that if Nathaniel had known what the right thing to do was back then, but right in a manner that did not ignore what he saw with his own eyes and observed with his own mind, he would have done it. And I believe that he learned about the nature of those aspects of reality the hard way, but he did learn them (as his life after the break attests).

As an aside, this is great stuff for a fictional work.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant -

I agree that NB should have told the truth sooner. A reading of JD and MYWAR reveals that he concurs, though he had no hope that would have averted the storm.

I'm not certain about what it is you find offensive in what Ellen said/asked. Can you clarify?

It's the idea of using these principals to a tragedy as a "thought experiment" even if it's legitimate. More the words upset me than the substance. Rand and Branden are public figures, afterall. I'm as free as anyone else to say what should have been done and when by whom and I have, but "thought experiment" strikes me as trite.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally there is something concrete in writing from an insider about when Peikoff learned of the affair between Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand. See Valliant's post here. From the post:

I never had to ask Peikoff about when he learned about the Affair because he volunteered the information early in our conversations. Shortly after Rand's death, but well before the publication of Ms. Branden's book, Leonard's wife was reading through Rand's journals -- which, as readers of PARC know -- make such an Affair plain, and she told him about these. Later, Leonard read through the notes himself.

The notes were gone through very quickly after Rand's death -- notations and transcriptions of them suggest this.

Granted, this is second hand information and Peikoff can later deny it, but it is something in public, at least, from that side of the fence.

Now, here comes the perplexing part:

So, Leonard knew about it before PAR came out, as did those around him.

God knows how long "shortly after" or "well before" are in Valliant-speak, but I think it is reasonable, lacking any other standard, to divide the time in half. There were 4 years between Rand's death and the publication of Passion. So for now, let us imagine that "shortly after Rand's death, but well before the publication of Ms. Branden's book" (and, of course, the lecture where he announced the affair and the publication of Schwart's denunciation of Barbara in The Intellectual Activist) means two years.

So this means that Peikoff and his insiders knew about the affair and were aware of the fact that everybody else on the anti-Branden side of the Objectivist movement was denying it. And this went on for at least two years before he finally owned up to it in public.

This, in addition to accounts from several sources that he denied the affair to others.

No wonder this guy said (in OPAR) that it is OK to lie to circumvent what he called snoopers and practically raised this practice to a philosophical principle.

He wasn't excusing Rand. He did it himself.

Now I would like to see how he (or his people) justifies calling his own followers "snoopers" or considered them so unimportant that they needed to be misled for two years.

Michael

EDIT: Incidentally, Robert Campbell is to be credited for pulling this statement out of Valliant. He specifically asked Valliant point blank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, while Valliant did (somewhat) fix a couple of mistakes in the chapter "Mullah Rand," he left a number in place. He really should read my critiques closely. Here are some of the many mistakes and problems in the chapter.

Efron also calls Branden a “con man.”

Why is Efron credible concerning what she says about Branden, but not what she says about Rand?

Nathaniel Branden agrees that although Rand had become estranged from Isabel Paterson, with whom she had been quite close, this “in no way diminished Ayn’s appreciation of [Paterson's] book.” On the other hand, Rand’s disillusionment with Mannheimer, Branden concedes, did not “occasion a permanent rift.” He points out that Rand could admire an artist’s skill even while having profound objections to his philosophy—and even if she disliked the work, as in the case of Tolstoy and others. He observes that Rand, quite explicitly, did not seek ideological agreement from her business associates, such as her publisher. He points out that, even during the heyday of the “movement,” Rand was quite capable of a friendship with composer and music critic Deems Taylor, “without requiring that he be a convert.”

Why does Nathaniel Branden become accurate when he says something favorable to Valliant's case?

EDIT: Valliant is caricaturing the Brandens' books. They do not say that Rand excommunicated people because of their artistic tastes. She may have badgered people about their tastes at times, but she never booted them out.

The proceeding years saw the emergence of the Libertarian Party, which Rand denounced from the outset for many reasons, including its lack of a philosophical base, indeed, its apparent contempt for philosophy as such, and its alliances with anarchists, foreign policy appeasers and various other questionable persons. Many of Rand’s former students and exponents now found a home there, completing their own journeys away from “orthodox Objectivism.” Hospers became that Party’s first presidential candidate and Rothbard its most ardent propagandist.

In point of fact, the Brandens appear to agree with some of Rand's criticism of the LP. It is in their books.

These “differences” (over Libertarianism) are not so trivial as the critics suppose. They were certainly not trivial to Rand. But, rather than simply disagreeing with Rand over, say, the importance of systematic honesty in forming political and intellectual alliances, they accuse Rand of “intolerance.”

Who are the "critics"? Why doesn't Valliant name them?

From Rand’s philosophical perspective, either his anarchism or his plagiarism would each and together seem to justify her break with Rothbard.

Why doesn't Valliant tell his readers that the Brandens do not use Rothbard as an example of Rand's intolerance?

Professor John Hospers, according to the Brandens, was taken to task for certain “sarcastic” and “professorial” criticisms of Rand in a classroom setting, although, once again, neither of the Brandens chooses to relate any of the specifics.

Valliant drops a footnote and references both PAR and Judgment Day. Nathaniel Branden says Hospers "challenge[d] her viewpoint with the kind of gentle sarcasm professors take for granted and Ayn found appalling." Barbara Branden does not use similar words to describe Hospers' comments. Valliant should not present the two accounts as if they were one.

Hospers conceded that these were topics which he had been discussing with Rand for some time—indeed, from their first meetings—and that he knew that such a “linguistic” approach to ideas was fundamentally abhorrent to Rand.

Contary to what Valliant implies, the Brandens make it clear that Rand and Hospers disagreed on philosophy.

They assume that the policy of breaking with someone in a permanent way is in itself somehow authoritarian. “My gosh, for purely ideological reasons?”

Where do they say or assume this?

As indicated, both Brandens seem to assume that such a “break” constitutes some form of persecution. Ayn Rand does not want to see you anymore, and, therefore, your rights have been violated.

Where do they say or assume this?

Allan Blumenthal, a psychiatrist, has asserted that literally “all of Objectivism” was the product of Rand’s efforts to cope with her own psychology. He thus appears to have endorsed a form of psychological determinism—entirely rejecting, it seems, the possibility of objective cognition, a rather fundamental tenet of Objectivism.

Does Valliant have any proof for this assertion? I doesn't follow from Dr. Blumenthal's comment on Rand's psychology.

Brian Doherty, citing Ms. Branden, flatly states that Rand "kicked out of her life" all but two of her original "Collective"–Greenspan and Peikoff. (See, Radicals for Capitalism, p.232.)

No, he does not cite Branden here.

Not so with Kay Nolte Smith and her husband, who, in an act exhibiting unbelievably reckless judgment, changed the dialogue in their production of Penthouse Legend without authorization from Rand.

Valliant does not present any evidence that the changes were in the production of the play.

It should come as no surprise that this list of “former” Rand-associates, Rothbard, Efron, Hospers, the Blumenthals, the Holzers and the Smiths, while they may not have gotten along with one another afterwards, all helped to contribute to Ms. Branden's biography, as her “Acknowledgments” indicate.

They were interviewed, which is somewhat different from contributing.

Understandably, those who remained friendly with Rand did not make themselves available for Ms. Branden to interview.

Not true. Branden did interview Mimi Sutton, Alan Greenspan and Rand's housekeeper, all who knew Rand until the end and remained on good terms with her.

All those with whom Rand had a “break” share precisely the same bias and precisely the same interest in presenting Rand as an “authoritarian” as do the Brandens.

How can Valliant say this when he professes not to know the reasons why Rand broke with some of these people, such as Dr. Hospers or the Holzers?

But, precisely to the extent that they have endorsed Ms. Branden's deeply flawed account, they are subject to an identical critique of their own distorted objectivity.

Does Valliant have any proof for this hyperbolic statement? Was he there? Why should I substitute his judgment for the favorable comments on PAR by Robert Hessen, Alan Greenspan and Erika Holzer?

Pleasant or unpleasant, according to Objectivism, it is morally necessary to make appropriate ethical judgments of others. If this is what the Brandens and their friends now dispute, then they no longer believe in the basics of Rand’s ethics and should say so far more plainly, rather than accuse Rand of hypocrisy.

Do the Brandens, Erika Holzer or Robert Hessen believe that one should not make "appropriate ethical judgments of others"?

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been doing my Internet marketing studies and I am in constant contact with people and authors who tell you to go out and live your dreams. "Take action" is one of the most common phrases to read in that literature. It is a joy to be among those people. They push each other and extend their hand so that others can rise with them.

Then I go over to Solo Passion to keep abreast of the PARC stuff. I swear by all that is sacred, I feel dirty on leaving there. I get an enormous feeling of weariness about humanity from all the bad vibes, even knowing that those folks are not representative. The joy goes away.

Notice that even when a thread is about something good, the good subject is almost always used to bash something else. There is so much condemnation, foul language, irrationality, twisted logic, just plain vulgar souls who do not produce anything of value. (I am not speaking about the young people or even all the posters. Just the inside people and most of the regulars. These are the ones who set the tone.)

What a sorry spectacle of humanity that is flying the flag of Objectivism over there.

Sorry for the rant, folks. It gets to me sometime. I want the Objectivist world to be my joy, but when I look at that crap, it isn't. I find far more joy in other places. People who value life and live it to the full. People who produce and celebrate the new wealth and productions of a newcomer.

At least we do that at times here on OL. I see glimmers of joy in some other places, too, so there is hope. I just wish that those who condemn the loudest as a lifestyle, thinking that they are imitating Rand, would produce just 1% of the work she did in terms of value. But all I see is crap.

Where are the achievements?

:(

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**Psychological and Attitude Problems & The Decline of SOLO**

> Notice that even when a thread is about something good, the good subject is almost always used to bash something else. There is so much condemnation, foul language, irrationality, twisted logic, just plain vulgar souls who do not produce anything of value. (I am not speaking about the young people or even all the posters. Just the inside people and most of the regulars. These are the ones who set the tone.) [MSK]

Michael, that's a pretty good summary of the decline of SOLO. There are food fights here and bitter diatribes as well, but the difference on SOLO is that most? many? of the regulars don't do it out of only occasional anger or upset. The malevolent, insulting ill will is chronic with them.

And they take pride in it. You get the sense that their egos feed on it. Just from the bullying, yahoo-like, language.

So, while I have many bitter disagreements with a number of the regulars on OL, I get the sense that I'm dealing with basically good (although misguided) people who basically try to improve themselves.

There's a difference between --on the one hand-- someone who is neurotic in a highly alienated or hostile way or has another serious flaw in his psychology or is malevolent or 'always fighting' and beats his chest proudly about it, someone who has surrendered to it, has "gone over to the dark side".

And --on the other hand-- someone who has such problems or attitudes but doesn't let it get the better of him. He doesn't let it -become- him.

But one way to look more optimistically at the phenomenon: Significant very visible or ingrained neurosis and psychological flaws, like stupidity, like outright evil defeats itself. It ends up shouting in the emptiness, cursing at the sky, while sane people look warily and cross to the other side of the road.

There is only a tiny, tiny minority of all those who have ever read Ayn Rand who have eagerly pursued her novels and her ideas as a club to beat the world with, a more powerful way of denouncing, getting even with those who have hurt you or not recognized you, rather than in a more idealistic way, rather than building something positive. And it was inevitable that someone who reflected that idea of Objectivism as a club rather than a ladder would attract all those who felt the same way.

The benevolent part is this: Look at how FEW those people are out of all the people who have been attracted to Rand over the years. They're not even a fraction of one percent (as proved by the number of people participating in the Solo lynchings and slimings and bullying and mob attacks.)

THERE IS NO SHAME IN MAKING MISTAKES, HAVING DEEP PROBLEMS; THE TEST OF A MAN IS WHETHER HE ADMITS THEM AND AT LEAST TRIES TO CLIMB THE MOUNTAIN OF FACING AND DEALING WITH THEM.

,,,,,,

When Solo, captained by Mr. Perigo and Mr. Rowlands, first started, it was a much more positive place, people supported each other, a wide range of participants got along well. There was often good will, insight, mutual respect and courtesy. But go back and compare some of those threads from that period to the ones you have been seeing in the past year(s). And, the constant leavings and recriminations and making fun of anyone who breaks their solidarity by leaving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil's post #397 provides an excellent example of why detailing local specifics of Valliant's poor methods could take a lifetime. The list would go on and on.....

Adding some comments to the details Neil cited:

Professor John Hospers, according to the Brandens, was taken to task for certain “sarcastic” and “professorial” criticisms of Rand in a classroom setting, although, once again, neither of the Brandens chooses to relate any of the specifics.

On what basis does he claim to know that either of the Brandens remembers the specifics and deliberately "chooses" not to relate them? (A minor point: it wasn't "a classroom setting" but instead a professional meeting.)

It should come as no surprise that this list of “former” Rand-associates, Rothbard, Efron, Hospers, the Blumenthals, the Holzers and the Smiths, while they may not have gotten along with one another afterwards, all helped to contribute to Ms. Branden's biography, as her “Acknowledgments” indicate.

They were interviewed, which is somewhat different from contributing.

Understandably, those who remained friendly with Rand did not make themselves available for Ms. Branden to interview.

Not true. Branden did interview Mimi Sutton, Alan Greenspan and Rand's housekeeper, all who knew Rand until the end and remained on good terms with her.

Branden interviewed a whole lot of other people, too.

Here is the start of her "Acknowledgments" section:

"Acknowledgments," pg. v

[my emphasis]

I extend my grateful thanks to many people--the list exceeds two hundred--who freely gave me hours, even days, of their time, to speak of their memories of Ayn Rand. Much of whatever merit this book may be found to have is a direct result of their kindness. I cannot list all of the people I interviewed; some of them, for various reasons of their own, prefer not to be named. But I thank each one of them[.]

She then proceeds to list by name, if I counted right, 135 persons. Only a small percentage of the people listed came to any estrangement with Rand. Many were never close associates.

All those with whom Rand had a “break” share precisely the same bias and precisely the same interest in presenting Rand as an “authoritarian” as do the Brandens.

How can Valliant say this when he professes not to know the reasons why Rand broke with some of these people, such as Dr. Hospers or the Holzers?

And just what "bias" does he mean? His indication is that anyone with whom Rand broke has an "interest" in presenting Rand in such a way as to defend themselves. But against what? In whose eyes is breaking with Rand to be taken as an implicit charge against one's character? Not necessarily at all in the eyes of those who did the breaking or were broken with. He's exhibiting his presumption that one should be looked on with suspicion if one had a break with Rand.

But, precisely to the extent that they have endorsed Ms. Branden's deeply flawed account, they are subject to an identical critique of their own distorted objectivity.

Does Valliant have any proof for this hyperbolic statement? Was he there? Why should I substitute his judgment for the favorable comments on PAR by Robert Hessen, Alan Greenspan and Erika Holzer?

Same type of problem: He presumes his own evaluation of Ms. Branden's account as "deeply flawed," and thus he presumes a requirement of "distorted objectivity" to whatever extent persons endorse the book.

Pleasant or unpleasant, according to Objectivism, it is morally necessary to make appropriate ethical judgments of others. If this is what the Brandens and their friends now dispute, then they no longer believe in the basics of Rand’s ethics and should say so far more plainly, rather than accuse Rand of hypocrisy.

A number of times in the book, he indicates that the Brandens were trying to make a case that Rand was a hypocrite. I do not glean an attempt at making such a case from my reading of either of their accounts.

Another point harkens back to a rhetorical device I spoke of in a couple earlier posts -- here and here: Valliant's "use of concedes and variants to imply acknowledging something which hadn't in fact been questioned."

There are two examples of this slanted usage in excerpts Neil quoted:

[my emphasis]

1) Hospers conceded that these were topics which he had been discussing with Rand for some time—indeed, from their first meetings—and that he knew that such a “linguistic” approach to ideas was fundamentally abhorrent to Rand.

2) [....] On the other hand, Rand’s disillusionment with Mannheimer, Branden concedes, did not “occasion a permanent rift.” [....]

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
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