Ellen Stuttle

Although the issue of AR's anger isn't what I was talking about in my comments regarding her journal entries, it's a subject which keeps coming up. So I might as well re-post here a June 2003 post of mine from the Atlantis_II list in which I told my favorite story of an AR explosion. I've made four minor editorial changes: rearranging the order of the phrases in one sentence, adding a couple commas for clarity in another, and correcting a couple misspellings. I've also deleted a paragraph (originally third paragraph from the end) which referred to comments another poster had made. And I've substituted "[X]" for the name of the poster to whom I was responding. The rest is a verbatim copy of the original post. --- START re-post Date: 6/28/03 Subject: [Atlantis-II] AR's Aura (was: Necessarily Wrong) [X] wrote: > *sigh* I am again glad that I didn't meet Rand, though I am very curious > about her and wonder what she would have been like in person. I would love > to have observed her in action. That is: watched her body-language and > physical mannerisms while listening to her speak. I am a relatively good > reader of people and am very curious what I would have found. Anyone want > to comment? I might be the only person on this list who *can* comment in any detail, since I think I'm the only person here who was around her on more than an occasional occasion. I was never at a social event where she was present, and I only a few times had any direct conversation with her (I didn't attempt to initiate conversations with her, since I could predict what would have happened: it wouldn't have gone well); but I did attend three lecture courses at which she was present -- one of them Allan's music course where I deliberately always sat in the row in front of where she was sitting so I could eavesdrop on her comments to Edith Packer (Edith always sat next to her at those lectures). I also attended the Ford Hall Forum lecture for five or six years running. To this day when I remember Ayn as person -- her physical person -- I still feel a palpable sense of her aura. The phrase which immediately comes to my mind attempting to describe that aura is "a presence of power." But this can be misunderstood unless it's taken in a particular sense of the word "power." There was no quality of aggressiveness, of an attempt to "obtrude" herself, to exert command. The "power" I mean was a quality of certainty of mind. Maybe a sense of it will come through as I proceed. I assume that you've seen pictures of her, that you know that she was short -- not a lot taller than I am (I'm 5'2") -- and that she was "squarely," almost stockily, built. Another word which comes to mind is "stalwart." When she would stand at the podium she would stand straight, four-square, maybe with one or both hands resting on the podium while she read her speech or answered questions. She didn't move or gesture much while speaking, though there was a particular gesture she'd make as a sort of emphasis, a "there it is, that is the thatness of it" statement, a punctuation mark of finality. This gesture was a sweep of her lower arm and hand, palm down, on a sharp line from her body outward. She used that arm/hand sweep several times during the first lecture of hers I attended. That was before I moved to New York; it was at McCormack Place in Chicago. Between then and the next time I saw her, the split had happened and Nathaniel's and Barbara's replies to her statement had been published. In his reply he refers at one point to "a characteristic gesture." I've never asked him, but I'd bet that the gesture he was thinking of was the one I'm describing. She would read a speech in level tones, the words neither hurried nor dragged, but paced so that each could be distinguished. She showed no signs of nervousness -- or even of any awareness of the audience as audience. She did none of the things one is taught that good public speakers do -- and which in fact most of the people whom I've considered good public speakers have done -- such as trying to make eye contact, trying to develop a "rapport," a "relationship" with the audience. Instead it was as if she was entirely unconcerned about the audience's reaction. Except when she would make one of her "jokes." When she would use one of those wry twists she could do on an image (an example is "The Chickens' Homecoming," the title of one of her essays), she would pause slightly as if awaiting a laugh, then look mischievously pleased for a moment when the laugh materialized. Despite -- or maybe even partly because of -- her typical apparent unconcern for gauging audience reaction, her effect on an audience was riveting. It was as if her mind was a lens gathering and focalizing thought, and the audience would respond with a concentration answering hers. Of course, most of her lectures which I attended were at the Ford Hall Forum, where the audience was almost entirely composed of "students of." But the effect was the same at the McCormack Place lecture, where she was talking to a general audience numbering in the hundreds. There was soon a "you could hear a pin drop" intensity of attending to what she said. And judging from Nathaniel's and Barbara's reports, she achieved this same response wherever and to whomever she was lecturing. Come the question period, though, her channeled calm would usually evaporate at least once and her wrath would emerge like a sudden unscheduled intrusion from the percussion section (using a musical analogy, since it's Doug I'm answering). Regulars at Ford Hall got so that they could tell when it was coming. Someone would pose a question by which she felt insulted or otherwise irritated, and she would let loose with anger. And then immediately calm down again and proceed, with clarity and no sign of lingering emotional upset, to answering the next question. I was often fascinated by the sudden contrast. My favorite example needs some background to describe. The moderator at the Forum was Judge Lurie, an interesting person in his own right. He was diminutive in size, slim, agile; rather elfishly twinkling -- and sharply quick-witted. Judge Lurie would always repeat so the whole audience could hear it whatever question had been asked. Well...one time this guy started asked her something to the effect (I don't remember the exact words), Why had she allowed so bad a screenplay of her book *The Fountainhead* to be shot? (I have no idea if this guy knew that she herself had had a big hand in the screenplay, or if the question was asked in ignorance of its being insulting to her.) She started to rip into him. But Judge Lurie held up a hand and said in his inimitable speech cadences: "*Miss* Rand, *Miss* Rand [the reprise at a lower decibel level], wait until I repeat the question." She sort of ducked as if a little embarrssed and smiled at him with a shy girlish look. "Oh, I'm sorry, Judge," she said. So he repeated the question. And THEN she let the guy have it. After which she proceeded to give the next question a penetratingly thoughtful answer as if none of the above had just occurred. Returning to my comment above that her aura of power wasn't an issue of her "obtruding" herself or appearing to try to exert command: It was something to do with her being intent and not displaying the sort of social nuances which most people display. For instance, when she would walk into the lecture room at one of the New York lectures, she wouldn't be looking around for people she knew, pausing, smiling at people. She would just walk into the room headed for her chair. And if someone would stop her trying to make light conversation, she would just make some acknowledging response to the person's presence but continue on her way. Also when she would talk to people -- for instance in the autograph line -- it would be as if she had no awareness of her effect on them; instead as if she was solely occupied, with those enormous eyes of hers searching the person, only on assessing the level of intelligence with which she was confronted. [....] There's more I could say, but I'm hoping that this note might by seen by [X] before he leaves for the TOC seminar, which starts today. If you do see this before leaving, [X], and if you get a chance at the seminar, ask David Kelley and Marsha Enright the question about Ayn's body language. David might not have much of a description to offer, since he would probably have been mainly noticing the details of what he talked to her *about* instead of her manner of talking. But Marsha could tell you interesting stories regarding her cat conversations with Ayn. Marsha had this way, unlike anyone else I ever observed, of getting into non-philosophic "chit-chat" (for short) exchanges with Ayn during the breaks at lectures. (I used to try to lurk near the edges where I could hear, I was so intrigued by the difference from her usual patterns in the way Ayn would react to Marsha.) Signing off of this one now. I'm in a rush myself preparing to leave for the evening. Ellen S. --- END re-post ___

Barbara wrote: I'm a bit leery of copying this passage, since I don't want to be up on copyright-infringement charges. If I receive any complaints, I'll promptly delete the quote. But to get the full flavor of it, one needs the complete passage. This comes from a speech by Leonard Peikoff, "My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir," delivered at the Ford Hall Forum on April 26, 1987. It was reprinted in Vol. 8, No. 3, June 1987, of The Objectivist Forum and copyrighted 1987 by TOF Publications, Inc. --START Excerpt In the deepest epistemological sense, Ayn Rand was, as we may put it, the opposite of an egalitarian. She did not regard every aspect of a whole as equal in importance to every other. Some aspects, she held, are critical to a proper understanding; others merely clutter up the cognitive landscape and distract lesser minds from the truth. So the task of the thinker is to distinguish the two, i.e., to analyze and process the data confronting him, not to amass mounds of information without any attempt at mental digestion. She herself accordingly always functioned like an intellectual detective, a philosophical Hercule Poirot, reading, watching, listening for the fact, the statement, the perspective that would illuminate a whole, tortuous complexity--the one that would reveal the essence and thereby suddenly make that complexity simple and intelligible. The result was often dramatic. When you were with her, you always felt poised on the brink of some startling new cognitive adventure and discovery. [so far so good, but now comes the example.] Here is an example of what I mean. About a dozen years ago, Ayn Rand and I were watching the Academy Awards on television; it was the evening when a streaker flashed by during the ceremonies. Most people probably dismissed the incident with some remark like: "He's just a kid" or "It's a high-spirited prank" or "He wants to get on TV." But not Ayn Rand. Why, her mind, wanted to know, does this "kid" act in this particular fashion? What is the difference between his "prank" and that of college students on a lark who swallow goldfish or stuff themselves into telephone booths? How does his desire to appear on TV differ from that of a typical game-show contestant? In other words, Ayn Rand swept aside from the outset the superficial aspects of the incident and the standard irrelevant comments in order to reach the essence, which has to pertain to this specific action in this distinctive setting. "Here," she said to me in effect, "is a nationally acclaimed occasion replete with celebrities, jeweled ballgowns, coveted prizes, and breathless cameras, an occasion offered to the country as the height of excitement, elegance, glamor--and what this creature wants to do is drop his pants in the middle of it all and thrust his bare buttocks into everybody's face. What then is his motive? Not high spirits or TV coverage, but destruction--the satisfaction of sneering at and undercutting that which the rest of the country looks up to and admires." In essence, she concluded, the incident was an example of nihilism, which is the desire not to have or enjoy values, but to nullify and eradicate them. Nor did she stop there. The purpose of using concepts, as I have suggested--and the precondition of reaching principles--is the integration of observed facts; in other words, the bringing together in one's mind of data from many different examples or fields, such as the steel and the coal industries, for instance. Any Rand was expert at this process. For her, grasping the essence of an event was merely the beginning of processing it cognitively. The next step was to identify that essence in other, seemingly very different areas, and thereby discover a common denominator uniting them all. Having grasped the streaker's nihilism, therefore, she was eager to point out to me some very different examples of the same attitude. Modern literature, she observed, is distinguished by its creators' passion not to offer something new and positive, but to wipe out: to eliminate plots, heroes, motivation, even grammar and syntax; in other words, their brazen desire to destroy their own field along with the great writers of the past by stripping away from literature every one of its cardinal attributes. Just as Progressive education is the desire for education stripped of lessons, reading, facts, teaching, and learning. Just as avant-garde physics is the gleeful cry that there is no order in nature, no law, no predictability, no causality. That streaker, in short, was the very opposite of an isolated phenomenon. He was a microcosm of the principle ruling modern culture, a fleeting representative of that corrupt motivation which Ayn Rand has described so eloquently as "hatred of the good for being the good." And what accounts for such widespread hatred? she asked at the end. Her answer brings us back to the philosophy we referred to earlier, the one that attacks reason and reality wholesale and thus makes all values impossible: the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Listening to Any Rand that evening, I felt that I was beginning to understand what it means really to understand an event. I went home and proceeded to write the chapter in my book The Ominous Parallels about Weimar culture, which develops at length Ayn Rand analysis of the modern intellectual trend. The point here, however, is not her analysis, but the method that underlies it: observation of facts; the identification of the essential; the integration of data from many disparate fields; then the culminating overview, the grasp of principle. I use the term "overview" deliberately, because I always felt as though everyone else had their faces pressed up close to an event and were staring at it myopically, while she was standing on a mountaintop, sweeping the world with a single glance, and thus able to identify the most startling connections, not only between streaking and literature, but also, as you must know, between sex and economics, art and business, William F. Buckley and Edward Kennedy; in short, between the kinds of things that other people automatically pigeonhole into separate compartments. Her universe, as a result, was a single, unified whole, with all its parts interrelated and intelligible; it was not the scattered fragments and fiefdoms that are all most people know. To change the image: she was like a ballet dancer of the intellect, leaping from fact to fact and field to field, not by the strength of her legs, but by the power of logic, a power that most men do not seem fully to have discovered yet. --END Excerpt So... It's easy to be sucked in by this passage, since by the time he's done with it, he's describing a way of thinking which was a major aspect of her brilliance. But her conclusions about the streaker's psychology are utterly unwarranted: he's a nihilist whose strings are being pulled by Immanuel Kant? Oh, really? Just how could she know that? I'd say that by far the most probable explanations are the ones she brushes aside. And recall, this occurred at the height of the streaking craze; there'd been streakers' fests in Central Park; someone had streaked across the stage at the National Book Awards (whoever was the master of ceremonies brought down the house by nonchalantly remarking, "Oh, I didn't know Alfred Knopff was attending"), etc. Streaking was the fad of the "hour," the then-equivalent of cramming into phonebooths (or managing to hoist a car onto a rooftop, a current fad). Probably this kid was just a kid on a highjinks, a bit bolder than most. In any case, to have had a legitimate basis for a confident ascription of motives, she'd have needed to have known some details (considerably more extensive details than the fact of his streaking) about that specific person. Ellen ___

Barbara wrote: That's what I think, too, Barbara. The journal entries, in sum, don't show her in a flattering light, and I think that ironically, long-range, if protecting her reputation was the issue, the publication of the entries will backfire by having a stronger effect in the reverse direction. As to whether or not Leonard understands what they reveal...I'd say only partly if at all. Remember that incident he recounts in his "My Years with Ayn Rand" memoir about the Academy Awards and the streaker? He reports this ooing and ahing over her perceptiveness. I read it cringing at the egregious demonstration of what she calls "psychologizing" (a term she defined in a rather different way than the traditional meaning). Possibly he's equally oblivious in regard to the journal entries. I haven't seen Leonard in years, not since the late '70s (and I'm not sure if he'd even still remember who I am, though I expect he'd remember Larry), but it used to seem to me both that he experienced ambivalence and that he knew he did. There were little facial expressions when he'd speak of her, shadings in voice tone, things of that type -- nothing properly "documentable." Ellen ___

[i tried to post this in the "Statements from those who knew AR" thread, but that thread is locked. MSK is welcome to move this remark there if he thinks it's appropriate to do so. ES] I interrupt my retirement from listlife to recount a remark which Allan Blumenthal made about Ayn Rand. I've read the journal entries in PARC -- just the entries themselves, skipping Valliant's interspersed "exegeses." As I anticipated would be the case, I'm finding the memory-lane trip engendered by my reading her words painful. Among many associated memories, I kept thinking over and over again as I read the long entry for July 4, 1968, of a particular comment of Allan's. (The quote starts with an "and," since it occurred in the midst of a series of reflections.) "And there are some subjects about which she knows nothing," he said, "like music and painting. But if you try to explain to her, she'll tell you you're wrong. And then she'll call the next day to ask if you've thought about what she said, and if you say 'no,' then it will be long discussions of your psychoepistemology. Conversations with her were not a pleasure." Of course he was highlighting the negative when he told me this. He'd by then split with Rand (several months previously) and was looking back on his relationship with her. He'd found value as well as displeasure in conversations with her, else he wouldn't have remained her associate as long as he did. But I felt as I talked with him that day that what he was saying confirmed my own disinclination to avoid getting "too close" to Rand's near orbit. And reading the journal entries thoroughly confirms a sentiment I expressed in one of my SOLOhq posts to the effect that I shuddered at the thought of "psychological counseling" with Rand. She constructs an entire edifice of "explanation" in those July 4 notes to herself, an edifice which I'd describe as being more in the nature of philosophic invention than of psychological "detection." (Granted, she makes a few perceptive points, but the total explanatory edifice she builds is artifical.) "But she's being denied major facts," the response might be made. Yes, she is. And, yes, as she says several times she suspects, there is something conscious operative in Nathaniel's problems. He's lying to her; he's actually having an affair with Patrecia, and has been having an affair with Patrecia for several years. But I submit that had Ayn been astute at detecting psychological signs, she'd have had enough evidence from her "stomach feelings" within the first few months of Nathaniel's and Patrecia's affair to discern what was going on. He's clearly been talking about Patrecia to Ayn often; there's even been some form of "Patrecia break" between Nathaniel and Ayn (the details of which aren't specified). And she's had opportunity to observe Patrecia and Nathaniel together -- hence to pick up the "vibrations" between them. Geez, I picked up the "vibrations" -- the body language -- between Ayn and Nathaniel on a public -- a very public -- occasion (the only time I saw the two of them together) years before the Split. (The occasion was her MacCormack Place speech in fall of '63; I was sitting in the front row a couple seats to the right of the podium facing the podium. And I was watching specifically for the body language, since I already had suspicions of a romantic involvement between the two of them.) How much more opportunity did Ayn have for observing Patrecia and Nathaniel together? Why didn't she see? (Reading her journal entries, I kept feeling the desire to reach back through time and to say to her, "Where are your eyes, woman?! Open those large eyes of yours and look!") I feel that, supposing I had never heard of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden before reading the journal entries, supposing I was reading them as my first knowledge of the persons involved, I would suspect just from details she reports that what Nathaniel was consciously hiding from her was an affair-in-progress with the young woman in the scene. Ayn comes across to me as...so naive. It's odd. I used to think of her (affectionately) in the years between spring '63 (which is when I learned of, subscribed to, and acquired all the then-back issues of The Objectivist Newsletter[/]) and fall '68 (which is when I moved to New York City) as "my naive genius." I always did think of her -- and I mean from my first reading of Atlas[/] (June, 1961) -- as lacking in psychological insight. My feeling is that her journal entries analyzing the circumstances with Nathaniel scream out that lack. I feel so sorry across the distance of time for all of the persons involved. Ellen ___

Actually, Bill, it doesn't matter about the type font unless others complain about that too, since I can't go on with active elist participation in any case. I posted fairly extensively (for me) here last weekend, and as a result have spent much of the last four days hibernating in a dark room waiting for the light-triggered muscle twitches to subside. Trying to engage in the conversation on elists has become just not worth the resultant ordeal, though I'll continue to try at least for awhile to read the posts here every few days. Ellen PS to all: Sorry to desert. This is a fun list, and I wish I could play an active role. PPS to Dragonfly: Sorry to "hijack" your subject with this announcement. I considered posting it as a new thread in "Living Room," but decided that it followed "logically" (though whether "analytically" or "synthetically" so, I leave you to ponder) from my complaint to Bill about what I experience as his painful type style. ___

Bill, If you're going to be posting here, must you post in the assault-on-the-eyes large and bolded type? The type of itself is physically painful to me to be confronted by. Ellen ___

REB: Roger, I believe you mentioned that J. Roger Lee was present at that event you attended where Nathaniel, Barbara, and John Hospers were reminiscing. You might want to ask J. Roger for some thoughts on this. He's been known to wax loquaciously on the subject of Leonard's lack of knowledge of modern philosophy. (J. Roger is an old-time friend of Larry's and mine.) You could get in touch with him through John. I'm not sure what J. Roger's current email address is, but I think that he and John are in fairly frequent contact. Ellen ___

I'd written: "(3) Regarding reasons for the animosity toward the Brandens... Among the factors which I think is operative is a desire to deify AR, a seeing her as a god figure, though people who see her that way generally deny that they do. The Brandens show her as a human, and that's a threat." REB says ("Re: The funniest line this year"): I think that the quasi-religious dynamics need straight-out acknowledging and discussing. It's been the tendency of Objectivists ever since the "it's a religion" charges started to be made to deny the validity of the charges. But Rand was presenting a new dispensation in Atlas, the nucleus of a code for a new way of life, complete with god/saint figures. The dynamics which occur in the Objectivist world, with the schisms and breaks, the emotional reactions re the moral statuses of the leading figures, are those which occur in religions. (And the similarities are strong to the formative history of Christianity. I often feel watching the Objectivist world -- and I think this is a major reason for my interest in watching -- that I'm seeing happen, now, today, and amongst people known to me, processes which give me a strong felt sense of those in the development of Christianity.) I believe that understanding the dynamics requires categorizing them as the type of dynamics they are, definitely at least "quasi" religious. (Myself, I think outright religious without the "quasi," since I don't think that "faith" is a defining characteristic of religion. Instead, I think the essential characteristic is that of providing a mythos -- an overarching "tale" -- about what human life is and should be, its meaning and place in the cosmos, including ethical instruction. But I'm not desirous of becoming sidetracked into whether "quasi" is needed as a modifier or not. The modifier will do. The issue which I think begs to be understood these days is that the canonization/demonization are the same phenomena which occur in religious groups re the chief figures of those groups' mythologies.) Ellen ___

REB to Dragonfly: But start a new thread with it, so those interested can find that discussion without having to remember that it's interleaved in a discussion of a different topic? How large of bottles? ;-) Michael M. has "a way" -- somehow adversarial right off. (I'm thus far ignoring the questions he asked me yesterday on NB's list; I'm thinking I'll probably continue ignoring them.) Ellen ___

I wrote: "Truth is, I think there's been a turning against Nathaniel on the part of several who were former fairly frequent flyers on his list." Dragonfly Michael Moeller is at minimum headed in that direction. He's made comments on RoR. There are some others whose sentiments I suspect have changed but who haven't said anything outright. One little sign: The number of members dropped by 5-7 in the last couple days. The vast majority of the members on that list have never posted anything. And the membership has tended to show a steady small increase. I figure that an awful lot of the membership is people who signed up just to read whatever Nathaniel himself posts, who don't look at the list very often, and who might even tend to forget that they are members. (I'm on a couple lists which I joined out of curiosity to see what they're like and have never bothered to drop my membership on, though I haven't looked at the posts there in months and months, maybe more than a year. I suspect NB's list has a lot of inert members of this type.) The number was hovering around 785-787. It was 780 when I looked today. It's easy to suspect that this drop was people who voted with their feet when NB versus Rand issues re-arose as a result of Michael Lee's post. I agree with your opinion. It was an odd kind of list, neither fish nor foul, without a clear purpose. (Notice, I'm thinking of the list in past tense, since it certainly is ghost city these days.) Was it supposed to be a list where Nathaniel answered questions and gave "helpful hints from the doctor"? But he rarely posted, and even when he did, his replies were usually very brief -- and then occasionally he'd pipe in with a remark which showed that he wasn't quite tracking what was going on. Or was it supposed to be an actual debate forum? To the extent it functioned as a debate forum, it couldn't do that well, since there were too few people with much intellectual background. Plus there was the fine line not to be exceeded of being too critical of NB's work in his own house (a line that Walter was better at managing than RCR). Whatever the exact blend of causes, there's no fire there at present. Ellen ___

This is just a quick note. My husband is scheduled to arrive home at any moment (he's been visiting his sister in Florida), and I'm expecting to be interrupted. I haven't yet read Kevin's long reflections. But I wanted to say a few things about "the story so far" up to that post. (1) Your doughnuts comment is a gem of a gem, Roger. (2) Re this from Michael: Might I edit the remark? ;-) Read Popper to find out if you were right? I'm interested by your describing Daniel as condescending. I think I'm going to have to try to find the time to read the history of his participation. I never managed to keep abreast of it while it was going on (and wasn't even aware until some weeks after he and Laj left that they had left). In the parts I read of his posts, he didn't come across to me as condescending. The message that registered with me from skimming was regret at my still not having acquired much familiarity with Popper's views of mind. That's a lack in my background which I hope to remedy. (3) Regarding reasons for the animosity toward the Brandens... Among the factors which I think is operative is a desire to deify AR, a seeing her as a god figure, though people who see her that way generally deny that they do. The Brandens show her as a human, and that's a threat. (4) Barbara: Darn. California is impossible for us this summer, what with our being headed to Budapest in August. I sure would like to witness the conference, though. Wow, you and Nathaniel and Linz at the same meeting. I expect it to be historic. (5) Roger: You said something about their wanting something less controversial than your 2002 and 2003 presentations. What were those presentations, and what was the controversy (if you have time to indicate)? Ellen ___

Dragonfly I think that his leaving headed the list toward a moribund state, but that there's more to the problem than Mike's absence and RCR's being at the helm. Connect with events in the wider O'ist-related world. Truth is, I think there's been a turning against Nathaniel on the part of several who were former fairly frequent flyers on his list. Ellen ___

Rich, Re the current deadness of NB's list: I'd prefer not to engage in the details of a "post mortem," but since you provided a tentative diagnosis, I feel obliged to indicate that I think you're focusing much too narrowly in looking for causes. Ellen ___

Dragonfly: But you do know what a "Dennettite" is? ;-) (You didn't object to that description of Laj.) Daniel describes himself as a Popperian; this isn't a label which has been stuck on him by Objectivists. He subscribes to Popper's theories of the nature of mind (the details of which I'm not too clear on; I never did get around to extensive reading of Popper). Interestingly, Daniel and Laj get along together just fine. I don't think they knew each other before they "met" on the old SOLO list, but they developed a camaraderie there. This is interesting to me because it just goes to show you the way intellectuals in the wider world can relate to each other, unlike in the O'ist world. Popper and Dennett are not in agreement on theories of mind. And yet Daniel and Laj have no troubles being friendly with each other -- and most of the rest of the list considered the two of them more or less the evil twins. Ellen ___

Barbara, Are both you and Linz going to be at the TOC Summer Conference? Oh, Lord, that will be interesting, if so. Where's the location? Wherever it is, Larry and I can't attend for more than an afternoon; he'll be teaching -- summer school -- and meanwhile we'll be in the last stages of preparing for a trip to Budapest (symmetry conference). But if it were within driving distance of here, we might be able to "nip over" to say hi. Ellen ___

A quick remark on my way out the door for an appointment. Much more later. Dragonfly: The former poster to whom you're being compared is Daniel Barnes, a Popperian. An intelligent and perceptive guy who was asking mighty good questions. I don't remember off-hand the name of the thread on which he was asked to leave. He and another whose name was shortened to Laj -- full name something like Abolajai Ogunshola (last name probably badly misspelled), a Dennettite -- a thread on which he was participating was posted as a link by Ed Thompson in one of the discussions you were having with Ed. If you go to that thread Ed linked and click on Laj's name so you can get his full list of posts, you'll find threads in which Daniel Barnes also participated. The two of them often posted in tandem. The last (chronologically) post (top of the list under the name) listed by Laj will give you the thread in which the two were asked to leave. Ellen PS: Barbara, I think you're on the nail about the cruciality of the venom problem being solved (if it can be solved) if Objectivism is to have any welcome by the wider world. ___

Michael, Your concerns about not scaring off the skitty "fish" of ideas-in-formation are especially important ones for a list like this, where fishing expeditions in thought are being encouraged. But if I might enter a concern from the other direction about interpretations of Dragonfly's remarks. Please keep in mind, people, that Dragonfly is not a native English speaker, that he has to translate his thoughts into a language which isn't his native tongue. Thus it's well not to take umbrage at details of nuance. I myself, on an earlier list, got into some crossed swords over nuance with Dragonfly, but I've been very impressed by what seems to me his effort at tactfulness here. Ellen ___

Brief thread hijacking wearing my editor hat... (If people want to pursue the subject of current preferred writing style, we should transfer the subject to a thread of its own): Michael inquires about the dropped a from aesthetics in O'ist writings. There's one where the O'ists were ahead of the curve (though many of them still want to hold out for the generic "man"). Abbreviated diphthongs are becoming preferred styling for Greek words. E.g., how often have you seen in English-language books and articles published during the last about twenty years the spelling "orthopaedics"? Roger at least used to gripe about "esthetics" instead of "aesthetics," but I expect he's fighting a losing battle on that one. Ellen ___

Michael: Well...because seeking "a mirror" isn't what I meant? I don't mean by "insight" a reflection of myself, I mean understanding of the ways of human life. See my comment earlier about Aristotle's actual views on esthetics. (I realize that you were probably joking, but clarifying in case you weren't...) Ellen ___

Jody: LOL. Right. I do become tired of charges that I lack passion because condemning people isn't my favorite sport. (I've been the recipient of numerous such charges over the years.) Ellen

Phil: Yes, I read your posts about that on RoR; also the thread started by J. J. Tuan's essay. I admit that I'm having trouble relating to the whole issue, and I'll say that I think that my difficulties relating might have profound depths in terms of why I never considered myself "an Objectivist." It seems to me that from the beginning my approach to Rand's writing has always been different from the approach of the Objectivists I've met. It seems to me that what I was looking for, what I was responding to, wasn't what they were. My initial interest in Rand was because of how very good a writer I thought she was (the first book of hers I read was Atlas, in June '61, two years before I learned of the existence of NBI and of the philosophy as such). I think that this difference of approach is proabably related too to my troubles identifying with the importance so many people place on AR's own "moral" status -- vide the current arguments regarding the Valliant book. In mulling over all this -- though not coming to any "conclusions" I can even properly formulate -- a sentence came to my mind. I'll share the sentence. It was: "What I seek from literature is insight, not inspiration." Musingly, Ellen ___

Michael: It was always my impression that there was a terrifically high romantic-relationship (not just marriage) failure rate among Objectivists. And that there was a reason for the rate of failure, a reason which connects to the psychology/philosophy issue Michael spoke of on the "Two Comments" thread I started in the Living Room forum. Objectivists had a way of choosing partners in accordance with a check-list of abstract agreements and characteristics, instead of in accordance with whom they genuinely enjoyed being with (I think often they didn't even know who the latter people were). Maybe things have improved over the years in regard to romantic choices, with the younger ones having learned from the errors of the older ones. I hope there's been improvement. Of course, failed romantic relationships are by no means limited to Objectivist circles, nor selecting partners on the basis of criteria which aren't good ones to use. I'm just pointing out that there seemed to be a particular type of wrong criteria almost systematically employed by Objectivists. As to whether the people had "read a book like this." Most of the early Objectivists would have attended the course on which the book was based. I haven't read the book myself, and I admit to hardly remembering the course. The main thing I remember is that I attended the course when it was given on tapes by Callahan after the split, as a form of objecting to the demonizing of the Brandens. I honestly don't remember if there was a moralistic cast in the original lectures. If there was, I assume this was altered when the material was published in book form. Ellen ___

Ciro: Hmm. The only occasion I can think of which it might have been (though I'm not remembering mentioning this but possibly I did mention it) is a Jung workshop (not a convention; there were only about 30 people attending) when we had lunch at a restaurant which was a big favorite of mine and which has subsequently closed. The restaurant was called Cody's and had an old-West theme: many memorabilia and photos from "Wild Bill" Cody's era and earlier. I had a sense of home-going, I guess I could say, when I ate there. My mother came from a line of Colorado ranchers, and I visited the remaining Soward ranch once when I was in grade school and then several times in the summers during my college years. Plus my seemingly from-birth love of horses. (My mother once told me that she thought my first word was "Horse?" as in "Can I have a horse now?".) I did love that restaurant, with the memories it brought back. And the food was very good, in a hearty Western barbecue style. (They also had some lighter chicken and fish dishes -- a parmesan-crusted salmon, for instance -- which were what I usually ordered.) Their baked potatoes were the best at any restaurant I've ever eaten at: large, and dusted with some smoked-barbecue flavor spices before baking. (I'm salivating remembering.) And their cornbread!! Almost as good as the cornbread my mother used to make. Ellen ___

(1) On Nathaniel's list today, there was a post by Michael Lee which catalyzed something I've been on the edge of realizing: how horrified I am by the amount of...what word do I want? I'll settle for now for the word "venom"...which is emerging in the latest battles over Rand and the Brandens. I'm reminded of a line from "Judgment at Nuremburg": "Are we going to do this again?" For me, and for the Brandens, and for others old enough to have been there at the time of the original split, this is the third major time the battle has been fought (the second time was when David Kelley invited Nathaniel to speak at IOS in '96). Why is there such intensity? Why do people get so personally involved in what happened between Rand and the Brandens? What is at stake for people? And a more overarching question: Why do Objectivists act the way they do? Why do they savage each other's characters over disagreements? Why are they so quick on the trigger finger with condemnations? What is the source of these behaviors? Is it something in Objectivism itself which encourages moralism? I believe that there is something in Objectivism, an attitude which was conveyed by Rand, although I think it would be possible to filter that attitude out. But many Objectivists don't seem to want to filter it out; instead they seem to want to cling to it; they seem to derive a sense of virtue from judgmentalness. (2) By contrast, in reading the posts here today, I've been feeling: How interesting it is, the differences in background, in life stories amongst various persons on this list. And how amicable it's thus far been here -- as Roger said, a kind of haven from the you-know-what going on you-know-where. And the amicability doesn't feel to me forced, instead natural. That always-be-alert-for-evil attitude prevalent among Objectivists seems to me to be missing here. So why is that? Why is it missing? Is there a general characteristic which is present which accounts for the absence? Ellen ___

Ciro, I'm not remembering what restaurant you might be talking about which I might have mentioned. I mentioned Pettibone's in a post here in December, but that's not a restaurant we went to "many years ago." I wonder if maybe in a post somewhere I might have mentioned Sea Fare of the Aegean in New York City. That was a very special restaurant my husband and I sometimes went to (though he wasn't my husband then; we were Significant Others for years and years before we formally married). I was trying just a couple months ago to remember exactly what street the Sea Fare was on, but I'm not sure. I think it was in the 50's between Fifth and Madison. It was GORGEOUS. The owner was a wealthy art collector; the layout of the place gave it a feeling of openness and air and really did have an Aegean effect. There was a sweeping staircase and a balcony level as well as the main floor -- and on the main floor various private-seeming (because of the way columns and plants were placed) knooks. The food was to dream of. There was one meal I several times did dream of: enormous shrimp with a feta cheese and tomato sauce served on rice. It was so good. Umm. We used to save up to go there. An entree was about $15, which seemed a lot for an entree then. I might have mentioned this restaurant at some point because among the owner's museum-quality collection of paintings were a couple Capulettis. But I'm not remembering mentioning the place. We weren't friends of the owner -- just admirers of his taste and relishers of the food prepared by his staff. Ellen ___